Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

Welsh Assembly

1. Mr. Robathan: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received about a referendum on a Welsh Assembly. [35545]

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. William Hague): Since 1 January, I have received three written representations in favour of a referendum on a Welsh Assembly.

Mr. Robathan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the difficulties with a pre-legislation referendum are the number of questions it does not ask and the number it leaves unanswered? My father is Welsh—will he have a vote in any referendum? As I have Welsh ancestry, will I have a vote in the referendum, should there ever be one?

Mr. Hague: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his ancestry. He raises a difficult question. I think that it was right for the Labour party to decide that, if it were ever able to propose an assembly, it would have a referendum on the matter. My hon. Friend was right, however, to point to the difficulties of a pre-legislation referendum. The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) said three weeks ago that the difficulty with a pre-legislation referendum is that so many questions cannot be answered. Two days later, he announced that a pre-legislation referendum was his policy.

Mr. Ron Davies: That is because we sorted out the difficulties and found the answers.
Why does the Conservative party always get itself into such great difficulty at the thought that the will of the people will prevail? Does the Secretary of State realise that what we have suggested is quite unexceptional? We will put our detailed proposals to the people in a White Paper, and ask specifically for their approval. If they say yes, we shall legislate on that basis. The hard question now is for the Secretary of State: will he recommend to whatever is left of the Conservative party after the general election that, if the people of Wales say that they want an assembly, no one should stand in their way?

Mr. Hague: The hon. Gentleman need not worry about our view on the will of the people, as the result was 4:1 against the idea of an assembly the last time it was

demonstrated on the matter. I believe that that is what will happen again, and the hon. Gentleman's hypothetical question will not arise. The most alarming thing about the whole episode has been that it shows that the Labour party's chief spokesman for Wales has no more influence in the party than anyone who happens to write on a postcard to the Leader of the Opposition, and probably a great deal less.

Mr. Marlow: What powers and influence would Welsh Members of Parliament—particularly Labour Members—and Welsh councillors have to concede to assembly men? Will that not cause a lot of petty jealousy and upset? Is there not the potential for a fracas outside the television studios, as assembly men try to climb over Members of Parliament to hog the limelight? Who will be responsible for what? Is it all necessary?

Mr. Hague: My hon. Friend points to some genuine difficulties. If responsibilities are transferred away from this House, Ministers can no longer be held accountable in this House and other people elsewhere will be held accountable for the matters. The role and power of this House would be diminished, and rival majorities in Cardiff, Edinburgh and Westminster would tear apart the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend asks about the influence of Labour Members. Clearly, at the moment, the Leader of the Opposition neither trusts nor takes seriously his Front Benchers, and I do not see why anybody else should do so.

Traffic Area Office

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations his Department has made to the Department of Transport concerning the setting up of an all-Wales traffic area office. [35546]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): My right hon. Friend and I have expressed our support for a single traffic area covering the whole of Wales.

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Is it true that the Department of Transport has accepted the Welsh Office recommendation that an all-Wales traffic office should be set up, but has decided that it would be administratively convenient to set it up in Birmingham? What plans does the Welsh Office have to go along with that recommendation, and perhaps move to Birmingham as well?

Mr. Gwilym Jones: We have no plans to do that, save should the office be downgraded totally, as would happen under a Welsh Assembly. I should have thought that it was more a part of the hon. Gentleman's policies to transfer the Welsh Office to Birmingham—the office would be that relevant if his regional assembly proposal went through.

Mr. Fabricant: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the high standard of roads in Wales, but does he accept that half-saesnegs like me, who cannot understand Welsh, have great difficulty with Welsh road signs? In some parts of Wales, Welsh is on top and English underneath; in other parts, it is the other way around. If we are to have a single office, I hope that we will have some consistency


in road signs—perhaps, one colour for English and one for Welsh, so that half-saesnegs like me can understand what is going on.

Mr. Jones: I am sure that my hon. Friend is being too modest. I doubt that he really has the difficulties that he suggests. I feel that our bilingual road signs add to the breadth of what they offer and represent the culture of Wales. They are part of our increasing success in attracting tourists to Wales.

Private Finance Initiative

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress has been made in awarding private finance initiative contracts in Wales. [35548]

Mr. Gwilym Jones: Wales has long led the way in the move towards private finance. We recently announced a PH contract for the OSIRIS information technology project for the Welsh Office, as well as for major new car parking for the University hospital of Wales.

Mr. Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that the second Severn bridge demonstrates the scope that the private finance initiative offers for improving the Welsh economy and increasing investment in infrastructure in Wales? Does he find it surprising, therefore, that although the Labour Front-Bench team commends the PFI, Labour Back Benchers are critical of it? Is that not an example of new Labour being endangered by the prejudices of old Labour?

Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend is right. We know that new Labour means new danger. We also know that new Labour means new speak. The Opposition do not catch up with what is going on in Wales. As well as the second Severn crossing, we have been leading the way for a long time with our kidney dialysis treatments; they have been dramatically improved by the infusion of private finance, which has taken us from one of the worst rates in Europe a decade ago to one of the best now.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Does the Minister appreciate that we all say croeso to the private finance that is coming from LG of Korea, but does he agree that that is long overdue, given the heavy male unemployment following the mine closures and the thousands of redundancies in steel? Without interfering in the day-to-day running of that new company, would it be helpful if the company were given a gentle hint that, the more males it employs, the more it will ease our unemployment problem in Wales?

Mr. Jones: I hesitate to go down that line, and I wonder that the hon. Gentleman—seeing the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) sitting next to him—did not hesitate at expressing such sexist preferences. I am glad to have his whole-hearted welcome for the success of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in bringing that major new jobs initiative to south Wales—6,100 jobs for LG and possibly up to 20,000 in total as a result. Last week's announcement was a great day for Wales and that will continue, as long as we do not have the Labour party's policies.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: I was interested to note the success of the PH for the second Severn crossing for the people of Wales. What of the opportunities for new hospitals under the PH in Wales, particularly given our historic role of waiting in queues for the somewhat limited capital programme, which nevertheless is bigger under this Government than it used to be? What problems might there be in Wales if the Labour party tried to do everything it could to undermine the projects that are under way, just as it has done with the Darenth Park project in my constituency?

Mr. Jones: One of the most important PFI proposals in the project list is Baglan hospital, at £63 million. We intend to take that forward as quickly as possible under the private finance initiative. That project could be thwarted by a Welsh Assembly, as £63 million is only about 18 months' worth of the running costs of such an assembly. Since we know from the Opposition that no new spending would be financed other than out of existing moneys, would Baglan hospital be sacrificed in the interests of a Welsh Assembly?

Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the Minister list the schemes in Powys that have benefited from the PFI, or that are likely to benefit from it in the next 12 months? [Interruption.]

Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) reminds me of the Mid-Wales/Bronllys hospital. We are seeking to take forward 23 projects under the PH in Wales. I will happily give the hon. and learned Member any further details that I can.

Mr. Ron Davies: The problem is that, while the Government are trying to take the schemes forward, there is precious little evidence of their being successful. Will the Minister cast his mind back to the first answer that he gave on this question when he said that the PFI contract for the improvements to University hospital, Cardiff had been let? I understand that that contract has not been let. There have been months of delay in letting it. As a result, there have been delays to the Geraint Evans memorial heart research centre, which is badly needed in Cardiff.
In the light of the Confederation of British Industry's recommendations to the Government last week, would it not make sense to scrap the PFI for all schemes involving less than £10 million and fund them by conventional means?

Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman was wrong on the last part of his question.
On the University hospital of Wales, the £6 million contract for the major car park expansion is going forward and I anticipate no difficulties in respect of it. The Geraint Evans centre, for which I have the greatest sympathy, is a separate matter and not directly connected.
The hon. Gentleman clearly has not read what the CBI said last week. I welcomed its report as a constructive contribution to fine-tuning the PH. It demonstrates a large measure of consensus and I especially welcome its support for the Government's efforts. Guidance has already been issued in response to some of its concerns.

Mr. Ainger: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met the chairmen and chief executives of NHS trusts in Wales to discuss finances for 1996–97. [35549]

Mr. Gwilym Jones: My right hon. Friend met national health service trust chairmen on 18 October 1995.

Mr. Ainger: Since then, the trust chief executives and chairmen have become aware of the settlement that is coming down from the Welsh Office through the Welsh health authorities to them. Is the Minister aware that in Dyfed Powys, which faces cuts of £7 million, all six chief executives have refused to sign the contract offered by Dyfed Powys health authority because they say that they cannot deliver the services for the price that is being offered? Unless the Welsh Office gives additional finance to Dyfed Powys health authority, especially in respect of writing off the debts of the predecessor Dyfed and Powys health authorities, there will be significant cuts in hospitals and community services throughout the area. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, as has happened in England in similar situations, health authority debts incurred in previous years should be written off?

Mr. Jones: Contracts between national health service trusts and any health authority, including Dyfed Powys, must be a matter for the two parties to the contracts. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the news that I have agreed a loan of £1.7 million to Dyfed Powys health authority which, it is expected, will enable it to achieve a balanced position by the year 1999–2000.

Dr. Spink: When my hon. Friend meets the chief executives and chairmen of NHS trusts, will he explain the positive benefits that market testing has brought to the financing of the health service in Wales in delivering real resources for patient care and that, if the Government were to follow the policies advocated by the Labour party, that money would be denied to the health service in Wales?

Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend is right. Market testing has enabled savings to be made which, in the case of the health service, have been passed on to the bedside for the benefit of the patients. My hon. Friend is right to point to the Labour party's dogma, not least the stricture from the shadow Chancellor that there will be no new spending unless it is financed from existing moneys. Where will the cuts be made for the sacred cows?

Mr. Dafis: Does the Minister recognise that, if the cuts agreed to be necessary to deal with the present deficiency of money in Dyfed Powys materialise, there will be a furore in the area, especially in respect of the reduction, and possible closure, of community hospitals? Lack of revenue and the capital charging system are imposing serious strains on smaller district general hospitals such as Bronglais, which will not be able to keep up with capital development or replacement of equipment, much less with the introduction of new technology. Is the Minister aware that there are serious fears that we are into a spiral of decline in Bronglais which could lead to its being

downgraded from its status as a district general hospital? What does he intend to do about that and how can we prevent that scenario from materialising?

Mr. Jones: No, I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's hypothesis. The concept of capital charges has no bearing on the size of the hospital. The hon. Gentleman is being irresponsible in prophesying, no doubt for electoral purposes, some decline in Bronglais hospital. I should prefer that he look at the reality, such as the dramatic improvement in the out-patients waiting list across the Dyfed Powys area. That is what he ought to concentrate on.

Mr. Morgan: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Secretary of State has been abjectly humiliated by the refusal of Gwent Community Health NHS trust and Gwent health authority to publish the report on Julie Sharma and the £35,000 redundancy payment that she received, even though the Secretary of State put on the working party his own independent observer, Professor Dimond, one of the leading experts in Britain on NHS law? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the working party has been a complete shambles, in spite of his observer? What does the hon. Gentleman intend to do to ensure that the report is soon published in full and is available to all of us?

Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman starts off with the usual nonsense. Nothing of the kind has happened. Gwent health authority is pursuing the matter as strongly as possible. I am confident that it wants to ensure that a full, accurate account is available for all. I understand that it has set a deadline of 3 September to publish the report.

Governance

Mr. Hain: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to hold a referendum on the structure of government of Wales. [35550]

Mr. Hague: No. I believe that the interests of Wales are best served by the direct representation provided in Westminster by hon. Members in the House and the Secretary of State in the United Kingdom Cabinet.

Mr. Hain: If the Secretary of State is so confident that the people of Wales back his unelected Tory quango state, why does he not offer them a referendum on replacing it with a Welsh Assembly? Or is he frightened—not so much frit as ofni?

Mr. Hague: The hon. Gentleman forgets several things. The last referendum rejected the idea of an assembly by 4:1 and only 12 per cent. of the Welsh electorate turned out to vote in it. It is incumbent on those who wish to change long-standing arrangements to demonstrate popular support for change. I have no plans for a referendum, because I have no plans to do violence to the constitution.

Mr. Sweeney: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Welsh branch of the Institute of Directors recently conducted a survey of businesses in Wales and found that more than 70 per cent. were against a Welsh Assembly? Does that not show how disastrous a Welsh Assembly would be for business in Wales?

Mr. Hague: Yes. My hon. Friend draws attention to an important point. Nothing could do more damage to business confidence than the sight of an extra tier of government and an extra roomful of politicians consuming a great deal of time, money and space for no good purpose whatever. Wales is now forging ahead without the arrangements proposed by the Labour party.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: In the past couple of years, Conservative Members have regularly asked the Labour party to include a referendum in its policy, so does the Secretary of State welcome the decision to hold a referendum? Does he acknowledge that, once we have had a referendum and have achieved a yes vote by a 2:1 majority, which I anticipate, it will be much easier for an incoming Labour Government to implement the legislation, and more difficult for the Conservative party to reverse it at any future stage?

Mr. Hague: The hon. Gentleman must not presume the outcome of any referendum. I seem to remember a number of people presuming the outcome in the 1970s and, indeed, presuming the outcome of general elections.
I welcome the conversion of the Labour party to the idea of a referendum. I have asked Opposition Members about this on many occasions. The mistake that they have made now is to advocate a pre-legislation referendum which keeps the public in the dark about the final details, instead of submitting the final details to the electorate. That is an unsatisfactory option, for reasons well set out by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) only 48 hours before he was forced to adopt it as his policy.

Sir Irvine Patnick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Opposition's policy for a Welsh Assembly would spell economic ruin for Wales?

Mr. Hague: It would do no favours for the Welsh economy and my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the dangers. An extra tier of government, with buck passing between different levels of government and division between different parts of government, is no way to encourage business or to improve business confidence.

Local Government Finance

Mr. Rogers: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will increase the money available for local government in the next financial year. [35552]

Mr. Hague: I will make my decisions on provision for local authorities in the forthcoming public expenditure round and will consult local government in the usual way.

Mr. Rogers: The Secretary of State will be aware of the impact that the last settlement had on local authority provision in Wales. My hon. Friends the Members for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) and for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) and I were appalled by the decision that Rhondda, Cynon, Taff was forced to make to close residential care homes in the area. That has struck at the most vulnerable in our society in one of the poorest areas in Great Britain. In the next settlement, will the Secretary of State make some special provision for social services?

Mr. Hague: Local government was given a fair settlement last year, but it is important for local government to be as efficient as possible in using its resources. The hon. Gentleman and I have often discussed the position of Rhondda, Cynon, Taff, and he knows that it received an additional £10 million in council tax reduction grant, on top of the normal settlement, following the discussions that we had last year. When I consider next year's settlement, I will, of course, take into account all the pressures on local authorities as well as the resources available. I have no doubt that Rhondda, Cynon, Taff will be involved in those discussions.

Sir Sydney Chapman: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the level of Government support for local authority expenditure in Wales is now more than £850 a person? Is he aware that that is 18 per cent. more than the sum allocated to English local authorities? As an Englishman, I have no objection to that, because the figure should be based on needs and council tax revenue, but does my right hon. Friend agree that the people of Wales, the local authorities and the council tax payers in the Principality get a good deal?

Mr. Hague: My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point. The level of Government support for local government spending is £132 higher a head in Wales than in England and council tax levels are substantially lower in Wales than in England. The people of Wales get a good deal from the existing arrangements.

Mr. Rowlands: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, as a result of budget cuts, nursery and infant schools in the Rhymney valley will be closed or merged? We will have to build portakabins on the precious playing space of neighbouring schools to accommodate the children. Is that any way to enter the millennium, with our youngest children being educated in portakabins on playing spaces in schools in our community?

Mr. Hague: The hon. Gentleman knows that we are making great investments in education and that the private finance initiative will allow us to do more. I protected capital spending by local government on education in the last public spending round. The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues should remember that local government must use its resources as efficiently as possible and, before asking for more money, it should be sure that every penny it spends is well spent.

Sir Raymond Powell: Did the Secretary of State take into consideration the concerns of councillors in the new unitary authorities that have taken over the responsibilities of counties, boroughs and districts, before he assessed them this year? The councillors were worried about cuts in services to the people they serve. I hope that, when the Secretary of State meets the officers of Bridgend county borough council, he will consider increasing the amount of money that they get next year to spend on essential services, so that they will not have to worry, as they are this year, about cuts.

Mr. Hague: I certainly considered the task that local authorities faced during the reorganisation of local government this year. That is why we are giving them more than £40 million this year to finance the transitional


costs associated with change in local government on top of the 2.8 per cent. increase—which is generally in line with the rate of inflation—in the level of Government support which they receive in any case. I shall, of course, look at all representations in the coming public spending round.

Schools

Mr. Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met with leaders of local authorities in Wales to discuss the government of schools. [35553]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Jonathan Evans): Neither I nor my right hon. Friend has met local authority leaders specifically to discuss that issue. As part of the recently lifted boycott of discussions with the Welsh Office, directors of education declined to meet Welsh Office officials to discuss school government issues in the run-up to publication of the recent White Paper "Self-Government for Schools".

Mr. Murphy: Does the Minister agree that one of the reasons why local authorities have failed to meet the Secretary of State is that they realise that the Government are obsessed with the government of schools? The real issue facing education in Wales is a decade of constant underfunding. Why does the Minister not forget about government of schools and nursery vouchers and concentrate on what really matters: a proper financial settlement for schools in Wales?

Mr. Evans: If there is any obsession, it is that of Labour Members with control and uniformity regarding local education authority actions. The Government believe in choice and diversity, which is why we promoted the concept of local management of schools in the teeth of opposition from the Labour party. That concept is now welcomed universally by schools in Wales. The changes that we announced in relation to school self-government are also a step in the direction of choice and diversity.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, without pressure from central Government, there would be no progress in schools in Wales because local authorities are so stick-in-the-mud socialist that they would never allocate the required budgets to education? Is it not a fact that more money is allocated to schools in Wales and that they should produce better results?

Mr. Evans: I absolve some local education authorities from the charge made by my hon. Friend: my local education authority in Powys pioneered the idea of devolving budgets to schools and setting a margin for that. As my hon. Friend makes clear, there has been widespread opposition from other parts of Wales and large-scale scepticism about the policy. However, I do not see any manifesto commitment from the Labour party to return to the previous arrangements.

NHS Waiting Lists

Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress has been made in reducing NHS waiting lists in Wales in the last quarter. [35554]

Mr. Gwilym Jones: During the first three months of 1996, the number of people waiting more than six months for a first out-patient appointment fell by a third and the number waiting more than a year to be admitted for treatment was cut by 3 per cent.

Lady Olga Maitland: Does my hon. Friend agree that the millions of pounds that the Labour party plans to spend on a Welsh Assembly—which is opposed by the vast majority of Welsh people—would be better spent on the national health service, thus building on the Government's reforms which have reduced waiting lists to a record low? [Interruption.] Does my hon. Friend agree also that Labour's policies for the health service would deprive patient care of as much as £500 million? [Interruption.] Surely Conservative policies will always provide better care for patients.

Mr. Jones: Despite the baying of Opposition Members, I think that my hon. Friend is entitled to offer that opinion—which is shared by many people in Wales. She is right to raise the question of costs so that we may examine what would be lost through sacrifice to dogma. If we compare the number of day cases and in-patients treated now with the numbers in 1979, we can see that the size of the health service in Wales has, in effect, doubled. That is what the people of Wales prefer.

Mr. Llew Smith: Would the Minister care to comment on the decision by Gwent Community Health NHS trust to force the mentally ill in Abertillery—the most vulnerable people in our community—to receive in-patient treatment outside the county borough? Will he comment also on the remarks of the trust's chief executive officer, Mr. Bob Hudson, who told those patients, "Well folks, you have lost out"?

Mr. Jones: I admire the hon. Gentleman's determination to press the case on behalf of his constituents. He has, I believe, presented a petition to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, and has also secured an Adjournment debate for Wednesday night. I look forward to offering him the fullest reply some time after 10 pm on Wednesday.

Nursery Education

Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what new proposals he has to improve nursery education in Wales.[35555]

Mr. Jonathan Evans: Under our proposals, all parents of four-year-olds in Wales will, for the first time, have the opportunity to exercise choice when they seek nursery education for their children. Again for the first time, all voucher providers will have to meet defined education standards. The inspections to ensure that will drive up standards generally. We have also allocated substantial resources to the voluntary sector for training and other measures to raise standards of education for all under-fives.

Mr. Flynn: May I thank the Secretary of State for Wales and congratulate him on his role in the partnership between the Welsh Office, the Welsh Development Agency and Newport borough council that secured the


sumptuous investment of LG in my constituency? Will the Government now also commend the great achievements of Welsh Labour-controlled authorities, which provide better nursery education on a greater scale to more children than any authority in England? Is not it true that one does not need choice in Gwent and Clwyd, where there is virtually 100 per cent. provision of high-grade nursery education? Why does not the Secretary of State drop the silly idea of nursery vouchers, which are unwanted in Wales, unnecessary and wasteful?

Mr. Evans: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the generosity of his tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for his role in securing the LG investment. If I may say so, that stands in contrast to the churlish remarks made by his colleague the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) from the Front Bench. That investment will present many opportunities for those who live within Newport and the south Wales valleys. I believe that the extension of nursery education that will be brought about by the introduction of the voucher system will do a similar thing.
The hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) is right to say that there is higher provision of nursery education in Wales than in England, but there are shortcomings in some parts of Wales in terms of the quality of that provision. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] I am bound to say that there is a stark complacency in some of the observations—[Interruption.] We can look at many of the authorities represented by hon. Members who are raising their voices at this moment. The inspectorate has made it clear that shortcomings exist, and one of the advantages of the nursery voucher system is that it will lead to standards generally being raised.

Mr. Win Griffiths: Can the Minister confirm that, in Wales, well over 90 per cent. of four-year-olds already have pre-school provision, and that Her Majesty's chief inspector in Wales pointed out clearly that the best provision was made in local authority nursery schools and nursery units? Will the Minister confirm that, if the additional money that is being put into the voucher scheme had been given directly to the local authorities, all four-year-olds—and many more three-year-olds—could have had quality nursery education provision, and that the administrative costs of the voucher scheme are wasted money, which the Labour party will get rid of as soon as possible?

Mr. Evans: What I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that nursery provision across Wales as a whole is patchy and that parts of Wales have no provision for all four-year-olds. [Interruption.] It is astonishing that those who claim to represent the people of Wales have such a lack of knowledge of the way in which nursery provision operates within the Principality. It is a fact that provision is patchy and that Her Majesty's inspectorate has said that there are shortcomings in relation to quality. The introduction of the nursery voucher scheme will lead to an improvement in standards and availability.

Exporting Companies (Awards)

Mr. Butler: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what initiatives have been launched recently to encourage Welsh exporting companies to compete for national and international awards. [35556]

Mr. Hague: I have recently launched the 1996 Welsh award for export achievement and my officials have written to Welsh exporting companies encouraging them to apply. My Department also encourages applications for the Queen's award for export achievement, the export award for smaller businesses and the language for export awards.

Mr. Butler: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his efforts to boost exports of goods from Wales. To do that, of course, it is necessary to manufacture those goods in Wales. I also congratulate my right hon. Friend on the import of jobs and inward investment from LG in Korea, which will create more than 6,000 new jobs in south Wales. May I welcome Wales to the Milton Keynes club of areas that rely on inward investment for jobs?

Mr. Hague: I thank my hon. Friend and other hon. Members for what they have said. I believe that LG's announcement is the best single piece of news that the economy in Wales has had for many years. It will create 6,100 jobs directly, and at least as many indirectly. That achievement is greatly to the credit of the Welsh Development Agency, and of my officials in the Welsh Office. I also thank Newport borough council for its help and co-operation in bringing the project to fruition.
This has been a highly successful team effort, and I hope that everyone in Wales will be delighted with the news; however, we must now build on it. Today's Dun and Bradstreet survey shows that Wales is one of the most optimistic parts of the United Kingdom, and that is what we shall build on in the future.

Dr. Howells: As the Secretary of State says, one of the key drivers in exports is the Welsh Development Agency. Is he aware that the agency is telling everyone that it has no funds left for the rest of the year, and that in a number of constituencies represented by Opposition Members key projects that will help with exports—such as land reclamation schemes—are currently on stop, and have been for months? What will he do to provide funds to enable those schemes to start up again?

Mr. Hague: The WDA has a very large budget in the current year, but it is not possible to undertake all projects simultaneously and to do all that we would like to do. Over 15 or 16 years, we have implemented Europe's largest land reclamation programme. Of course we want to do more, but it will not be possible to do everything at once.

NHS Patients

Sir David Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many (a) in-patients and (b) out-patients were treated in NHS hospitals in Wales in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what these figures were in 1979. [35557]

Mr. Gwilym Jones: Provisional figures show that 514,000 people were treated as in-patients and 661,000 were seen as new out-patients in 1995–96, compared with 350,000 and 429,000 respectively in 1979.

Sir David Knox: Does my hon. Friend agree that those figures show a great improvement in the health service in Wales since the Government took office? Will he confirm that the increase in the number of patients treated has taken place more quickly since the national health service reforms were introduced?

Mr. Jones: Certainly—but those remarkable figures have been achieved by remarkable staff, and by everything else that combines to make up the national health service in Wales, not least the Government's determination to keep driving the service forward and attaining our manifesto commitment to increase spending on it.

Mrs. Clwyd: Given that some of those figures will include women waiting for, or having, treatment for breast cancer, when can we expect a response to the petition that I handed in to the Welsh Office, along with some of our prospective women candidates who will be in the House after the next election? That petition—bearing more than 20,000 signatures—calls for better access to breast cancer facilities, for more money for research and for health authorities to make breast cancer treatment a top priority.

Mr. Jones: Coincidentally, I signed a reply to the hon. Lady three hours ago.

Mr. Richards: Has my hon. Friend yet calculated the additional demands on in-patients and out-patients in Gwent in the light of the proposed LG investment? Will he join me in congratulating our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who initiated the original contacts with the Koreans some 10 months ago and has supervised negotiations since then? Does he agree that the main factors in the securing of the investment, and the additional number of out-patients and in-patients—

Madam Speaker: Order. The question is about the national health service.

Boviine Spongiform Encephalopathy

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received from farmers' leaders regarding the effect of the BSE crisis on agriculture in Wales.[35558]

Mr. Jonathan Evans: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales and I have received representations from farmers' leaders about various issues relating to BSE's effect on the industry in Wales. We have met them several times and expect to do so again as the situation develops.

Mr. Jones: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Will he acknowledge that the industry's main and deep-seated concern is the lack of support given to farmers who are producing clean beef for the market? In recent weeks, those farmers, who are producing animals under 30 months old, have seen prices drop dramatically. Will he assure the House that the Government will top up the £29 million grant given by the European Union to

help producers in special difficulties? For once, will the Government give their own money to support Welsh farmers?

Mr. Evans: First, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that the Government have a substantial investment in supporting Welsh farmers. His specific point is well understood by Ministers. He will know that, following the Luxembourg Council, the British Government can decide to make some £29 million of aid available to the industry. Later today, I will meet the Farmers Union of Wales to hear what its observations may be as to the way in which that money should be spent, but I can make no commitment to the hon. Gentleman on topping up that money at this point.

Oral Answers to Questions — ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Inquests

Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Attorney-General what is the current average interval between his Department receiving notification of a death in suspicious circumstances and the holding of an inquest.[35535]

The Solicitor-General (Sir Derek Spencer): The Law Officers do not receive notification of deaths. The timing of an inquest following a death in suspicious circumstances is a matter for the coroner concerned.

Mr. Corbyn: The Minister will not be surprised to know that I rise to raise the question of the tragic death in November 1992 of Leon Patterson in a police station in Greater Manchester. An inquest was held the following year, in which a verdict of unlawful killing was returned. That was successfully appealed against by the Home Office and a new inquest was ordered nearly two years ago. Will he explain why there has been that disgraceful delay in resolving the question of Leon Patterson's tragic death? Will he consider ensuring that legal aid is available for the representatives of Leon Patterson's family, particularly as the police and all other agencies will be funded at public expense in defending their actions surrounding his tragic death? Surely, in justice, the family should receive the same degree of support.

The Solicitor-General: The matters of delay and legal aid are not ones for which I have responsibility, but I think that I can assist the hon. Gentleman in two respects. First, I understand that the new coroner's inquest will take place in September and, secondly, if new evidence is forthcoming at that inquest, the Crown Prosecution Service will consider it and decide whether, in the light of it, any criminal proceedings should be instituted.

Mr. Jessel: Following the inquest into the Marchioness disaster, when 51 mainly young people were drowned in the River Thames, does my hon. and learned Friend expect any prosecutions?

The Solicitor-General: As my hon. Friend will know, the verdict of a coroner's jury in April 1995 recorded death by unlawful killing and, following that coroner's inquest, the Crown Prosecution Service obtained the transcripts of the evidence that had been given. It has


obtained the advice of leading counsel and a decision will be taken shortly as to whether further criminal proceedings will be instituted.

Traffic Offence Cases

Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Attorney-General how many road traffic offence cases within Greater London have been abandoned by the Crown Prosecution Service, subsequent to their court listing in the past six months; and if he will make a statement. [35536]

The Attorney-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): Precise statistics are not kept, but many motoring cases are discontinued at court on production by the defendant of documents that should have been produced much earlier.

Mr. Mackinlay: Will the Attorney-General do better and inquire of the courts in London as to why prosecutions are often abandoned on the day, simply because either no lawyer is available to prosecute or for some inexplicable reason other than the one advanced by the Attorney-General?

The Attorney-General: The reason that I have just advanced is common. Some people turn up with their documents at the last moment. It is only when they are brought to court that they produce them, but, if the hon. Gentleman lets me know of the inexplicable cases that he has specifically in mind, I will have them examined.

Mr. Dykes: I hope that I remain in order in asking about the unusual case of the McPanlin family, where Mrs. McPanlin was killed in a hit-and-run accident in June 1995—I know that this is different from the cases referred to by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay). This is a disturbing story, but there has been no CPS follow-up and no action by the police, with the suggestion in the press recently that no prosecution has been forthcoming because the apparent perpetrators, Robert and Mark Mazure, have been involved in a separate murder case that has been tried recently. This is a most unusual and distressing case for the members of the McPanlin family who are my constituents. I should be grateful if the Attorney-General could look into the matter in conjunction with the Lord Chancellor to whom I wrote on Thursday.

The Attorney-General: I shall ask my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor to let me have a copy of the letter and if I need further details I shall get in touch with my hon. Friend.

Appeals (Undue Leniency)

Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Attorney-General how many cases during the past year have been referred to the Court of Appeal on grounds of undue leniency. [35537]

The Attorney-General: In 1995, 77 cases were referred to the Court of Appeal in England and Wales and four were referred in Northern Ireland. To date, 69 of those cases have been heard by the Court of Appeal. Sentence was increased in 63 cases or 91 per cent.

Mr. Arnold: My right hon. and learned Friend may not be aware that he has the gratitude of my constituents for referring a particularly vicious, fatal knifing case to the Court of Appeal on the ground of undue leniency. What might have befallen my constituents and what opportunities would they have had if Labour had been successful in voting down the capability to refer such cases to the Court of Appeal?

The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. The Attorney-General's right to refer unduly lenient sentences has undoubtedly been of real assistance to the administration of justice. It enables the Court of Appeal to put right not only unduly lenient sentences in, it must be said, the very small proportion of cases where such sentences are imposed, but to give valuable guidelines to the judiciary about the right sentence for grave offences of the type to which my hon. Friend refers.

Mr. Bermingham: Does the Attorney-General agree that the limitation on the nature of sentences that can be referred to the Court of Appeal, namely indictment-only type cases, creates the right atmosphere and allows only the correct cases to be forwarded? Does he further agree that the Crown Prosecution Service, in which I obviously declare an interest, by its careful sifting has aided the Attorney-General's office on the nature and type of cases that should come before the court and that that has benefited the whole sentencing process?

The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman makes two good points. He is correct to say that the Crown Prosecution Service looks carefully at each case that is capable of being referred. If it thinks that the sentence may have been unduly lenient, the case is referred to me, if necessary. That is in addition to the opportunity for hon. Members and the public to draw such cases to my attention.

Petty Offences

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: To ask the Attorney-General what estimate he has made of the number of cases the Crown Prosecution Service has prosecuted for petty offences, with special reference to petty theft, vandalism and public disorder. [35538]

The Solicitor-General: The Crown Prosecution Service does not keep records for these individual offences but in the year ending March 1996 the CPS took proceedings in respect of 769,023 defendants for summary only offences. The prevalence of the offence is treated as a factor in favour of prosecutions.

Mr. Jenkin: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Is he aware of the tendency among the forces of law and order to think that small offences do not matter but that small offences which start to go unnoticed begin to drag an area down? Unless we can prosecute people for small offences the larger ones will follow. Can he assure the House that the Crown Prosecution Service pursues cases of petty theft, vandalism and other small offences just as vigorously as it pursues those involving major, high-profile offences which, of course, get much more publicity?

The Solicitor-General: Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. The Crown Prosecution Service takes into account a number of factors before deciding whether prosecution is in the public interest. It considers not only the interests of the victim, which are important, the victim's vulnerability and the likelihood that an offence will be repeated, but in particular—this may strike a chord with my hon. Friend—in cases where the offence is not serious in itself, it considers whether it is widespread in the area where it was committed.

Mr. John Morris: Is the Solicitor-General satisfied that the Crown Prosecution Service has adequate resources and is properly staffed to prosecute? What financial cuts are now being imposed on it? Why is information offering early retirement with enhanced pensions being circulated to experienced staff as young as 31 to 38? Is that at the Treasury's suggestion? What effect will that have on the service? What will those early retirements cost?

The Solicitor-General: I can assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the Crown Prosecution Service has adequate money and adequate staff. Notwithstanding a 2.9 per cent. cut in its budget for this year, its funds and the number of its staff are greater than they were when I became Solicitor-General in 1992. As for his comments on early retirement, information on retirement conditions is being circulated to people at grade 7 and to senior executive officers simply because employment legislation requires that everyone in a class in which there may be staff reductions should be familiarised with their options.

Mr. Batiste: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that the public and the police have considerable concerns that the work of the Crown Prosecution Service, even on minor cases, needs to be much improved? That could give rise to outright opposition to a proposal to extend the CPS's rights of audience. Will he make a decision about its rights of audience in the near future?

The Solicitor-General: The future of the application for rights of audience for the Crown Prosecution Service lies not with me but with judges designated under the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990. The judges concerned have an application in front of them now. My hon. Friend mentioned the CPS's standing in the eyes of the public and the police. I should tell him that the police—whom I meet frequently about specific cases and matters of policy—almost without exception are full of praise for the Crown Prosecution Service's professionalism and expertise. On occasions the public are misled by biased and partial reporting in the media, but if the truth were to be told, they would share the view of impartial observers that the Crown Prosecution Service is doing a very good job.

Crown Prosecution Service

Mr. Flynn: To ask the Attorney-General what new proposals he has to improve the work of the CPS. [35539]

The Attorney-General: Current initiatives include team working, the promulgation of further charging standards, the setting up of a Crown Prosecution Service inspectorate and close co-operation with the police—aimed at simplifying paperwork wherever possible and helping the police to ensure that files delivered to the CPS contain all the evidence necessary to secure a conviction.

Mr. Flynn: What can the CPS do about a case—of which I have given the Attorney-General brief notice—that happened in my constituency last week, when a man was sentenced to community service after he had attacked Mr. John Marsh, an ambulance driver who was on duty attending an injured woman? A friend of the injured woman attacked Mr. Marsh and inflicted on him injuries so severe that he will probably never work again. The sentence was community service. Since 1980, crime has doubled but clear-up rates have dropped from 40 per cent. to 26 per cent. Are not soft sentences and poor clear-up rates an incentive to criminals to commit more and more vicious crimes?

The Attorney-General: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his question. If he will give me the details of the case, I will examine it together with my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, to see whether we consider that the sentence was unduly lenient—in which case we can refer it to the Court of Appeal under the provisions that were introduced by this Government and, despite being opposed by the Opposition, are now almost universally recognised as being of real value.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: Will my right hon. and learned Friend reconfirm that he does not recommend that the Crown Prosecution Service gives the right of audience in the higher courts to its employees? The result would be to wipe out the junior Bar and lead to the fusion of the two professions—which neither solicitors, barristers nor anybody concerned with the right movement of the criminal justice system in this country wants.

The Attorney-General: Decisions on such matters are for the Lord Chancellor and the four senior designated judges. Personally, I am implacably opposed to fusion.

Mr. Llwyd: A recent criticism of the CPS is that victims of crime feel estranged from the prosecution system. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman lend his support to the Director of Public Prosecutions' initiative in establishing officers with each branch, whose job it will be to liaise with victims and potential prosecution witnesses?

The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the value of Victim Support, which is strongly supported by the Director of Public Prosecutions. There is a strong initiative within the CPS to ensure that it works closely with Victim Support, to give every assistance to victims.

Northern Ireland

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Sir Patrick Mayhew): With permission, Madam Speaker, I will make a statement about the events of the past 10 days in Northern Ireland, and about the way forward.
Throughout that period, massive and completely unacceptable civil disorder has occurred on both sides of the community—totally wrongful in character and unjust in its consequences for all its victims. In the course of that period, two men have tragically lost their lives.
The Royal Ulster Constabulary has been stretched to the limit of its ability to maintain order and preserve life. Violent manifestations of sectarian antagonism have occurred. Intimidation, including intimidation of RUC officers and their families, has been rife. The Killyhevlin hotel at Enniskillen has been gravely damaged by a bomb, with many people shocked and injured.
All that represents, without doubt, the worst setback for many years—a return towards what so many people in Northern Ireland and far beyond had prayed was over for good. It has been a black period for Northern Ireland, with deep fears and anxieties generated on all sides. Trust and confidence have suffered greatly. In this statement, I will examine briefly with the House what has happened, and what the way forward from here now should be.
At the outset, however, I want to say three things. First, I warmly commend—as I think the whole House will—the maintenance by the loyalist paramilitary organisations of their ceasefire. It is of critical importance that it should continue. Secondly, if the people of Northern Ireland are to be helped to move back from the abyss, and move forward to a better future, all of us who claim a right to speak on these matters must seek to be objective and fair. To seize on what is no more than a partisan perception and proclaim it as an established truth without examination is immensely dangerous and damaging.
Lastly, I want to say that the scene, grave though it undoubtedly is, does have a crucially positive element. We have in place a democratic process of political talks, for which a large majority of the electorate has voted. I shall return to that aspect and to its paramount importance.
Sir Hugh Annesley, Chief Constable of Northern Ireland, yesterday gave an extensive interview to the BBC in which he described the background to those events and the events themselves. I have placed a transcript of that interview in the Library. I commend it strongly to the House. It sets out the facts.
Unprecedented efforts had been made by the Government, Church leaders, the RUC and others to secure an accommodation in Portadown. The Chief Constable makes it clear that, ever since January, he personally, and his deputy Chief Constable, Mr. Flannigan, had tried with both sides at Portadown to negotiate a compromise. I pay special tribute to the entirely independent efforts of the Church leaders, who strove for two days and nights to bring the two sides together—sadly, without achieving success.
The Chief Constable is required by law to consider the likelihood of serious disorder if a notified march proceeds. He has to make an operational, professional and impartial judgment. That judgment, under our clearly established constitutional arrangements, is for him alone.
On Thursday 6 July, the Chief Constable had duly decided to order that the return stage of the Orange Order parade at Portadown, which was to take place the following day, should be re-routed away from the Garvaghy road. A lawful order was accordingly made to that effect. That decision was made because he anticipated serious organised disorder—not limited to Portadown protesters—if the intended return stage of the march went ahead. A counter-march planned by the Garvaghy road residents also had restrictions placed on it, although, in the event, it did not take place. I wish to make it clear that, in taking that operational decision at that time and in those circumstances, the Chief Constable had and retains the Government's full support.
Over the next four days, serious disorder occurred in Drumcree and many other parts of the Province. There was a clear and reprehensible intention to overstretch the capacity of the RUC to maintain public order. At Drumcree itself, the Chief Constable has said in his own language that the most insidious, despicable and disgusting threats were made to his officers in the front line, to the effect that their wives or families would be got at. Elsewhere, the RUC was fiercely engaged. There was intimidation of officers' families and other civilians, with widespread blocking of roads and attacks on property.
The RUC, with full support from the Army, did its duty with great resolution in responding to this critical situation. At the request of the Chief Constable, two further battalions were brought into the Province in support of his force. However, despite the sustained efforts to which I have referred, it proved impossible for the two sides in the local community at Drumcree to reach an agreement.
On the morning of 11 July, after considering a number of options and having awaited the outcome of the on-going attempts at mediation, the Chief Constable decided that a limited parade down the Garvaghy road was the option most likely to prevent loss of life. He has made it clear that it was foreseeable that, by the night of 11 July, some 60,000 to 70,000 Orange marchers would be invited by the Orange Order to converge on Drumcree, and an attempt had already been made to get through the fence. In that event, he foresaw that they would overrun the wire, obliging the police and the military to withdraw and to attempt to protect the Garvaghy road estate. He concluded that there would be serious risk of lives being lost, including on the Garvaghy estate, and he has said that he would not in any circumstances have
traded one life for the Garvaghy Road
In that decision also, the Chief Constable has the Government's full support. We also share his regret at what he described as
an outrageous attempt by one side to impose their will on the other by the sheer weight of force.
I recognise, of course, that the nationalist community, or many of its members, are bitterly critical of this decision, but it was taken very much with the safety of the Garvaghy road residents in mind. I am in no doubt, however, that, under the circumstances, it was the right decision. The violence that followed in many nationalist areas was no more justified or acceptable than that fomented by loyalists earlier in the week. Once again, the security forces came under intense attack from gunfire, as well as petrol bombs and other missiles.
The police have responded proportionately, and with great courage and professionalism, to the attacks.
The police investigation into the bomb attack on the hotel at Enniskillen is now under way. While it is too early to say which organisation was responsible, it seems clear that preparations for that attack began well before the events at Drumcree.
The events surrounding Drumcree and the march on the Lower Ormeau road in Belfast on 12 July have underscored the potentially destabilising effect of controversial parades. There are no immediately obvious answers. Over many months, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler), has been seeking to avoid conflict in this year's marching season. As I said in the House last week, I now have in mind a general review that will make recommendations about the better management of future controversial parades.
I therefore confirm today that the Government intend to establish a review based on evidence that any interested party will be free to summit. I envisage that the review will examine the current arrangements for handling parades and marches in Northern Ireland. I shall announce further details of the review later, including the name of the chairman and detailed terms of reference.
Recent events, however, are but a symptom of the much deeper divisions that plague Northern Ireland. Along with all politicians who are committed to a peaceful solution, we must continue to seek to overcome them.
That can be achieved only in a talks process that can address all the issues and is committed to securing an agreed outcome that respects the aspirations and principles of both parts of the community. I referred earlier to the democratic process of talks that is in place. It is now more imperative than ever that it begins to address the substantive issues that lie at the heart of the divisions that have had such terrible consequences. I am pleased that the process continues tomorrow.
For our part, the Government are fully committed to the talks process. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I will be meeting the leaders of each of the parties involved over the coming days to hear their views of the way forward and to emphasise our commitment to the talks process.
I shall also be making arrangements, in consultation with the Irish Government, to meet them at an intergovernmental conference to discuss the mutual security interests between our two countries, and to demonstrate the reasons behind last week's decisions. On that basis, we intend to rebut very firmly the quite unjustified and unwarranted criticism that has been made of the Government and the RUC. In particular, my purpose will he, in the presence of the Chief Constable, to rebut any suggestion of political interference in his operational decisions.
All those who wish to lead Northern Ireland towards a more peaceful future—and they certainly include the Government—must now work together to re-establish trust and dialogue. None of us can accept a return to the violence of the past 25 years. We all have a responsibility to do what we can to avoid that and to demonstrate beyond all doubt that it is truly possible to find political

and peaceful means of resolving Northern Ireland's profound problems. That is the challenge that confronts us now.

Ms Marjorie Mowlam: Nothing can excuse the violence and destruction that has occurred over the past weekend. In the interests of peace—for which the people of Northern Ireland are crying out—it must stop.
We congratulate and support those who have exercised restraint and encouraged others to do the same. None of us should underestimate the seriousness of the problems in Northern Ireland today. A peace process that was already in serious difficulties has been dealt a mighty blow. It now requires real efforts from everyone if it is to be rescued. As the Secretary of State said, trust and confidence have suffered greatly. We congratulate the police in London on the discovery of bomb-making equipment this morning. Quality intelligence and assiduous investigation are the terrorists' worst enemy.
We totally condemn the callous bombing of the Killyhevlin hotel in Enniskillen. I am appalled that the people of that beautiful town, who have suffered so much, should be made to suffer again. It shows simply the boundless cowardice of the bombers. We condemn also the atrocious violence and rioting across Northern Ireland, and offer our condolences to the families and friends of the two men who have tragically lost their lives.
Security and vigilance are necessary to protect people. But, as with all policing matters, the police can only operate effectively with consent. Does the Secretary of State accept that the rule of law is paramount, and that the confidence of both communities in the institutions responsible for enforcing the rule of law is essential?
On the events of last week, will the Secretary of State acknowledge that the police were put in an impossible situation in Portadown, and that their resources were overstretched by a co-ordinated show of hostile activity across Northern Ireland? Will he now acknowledge to the House what he refused to condemn last week—that, in the words of the Chief Constable of the RUC,
the consent to comply with the rule of law did not exist with the Portadown Orange Lodge. They were not encouraged to do so by constitutional politicians and they should have done
We commend the residents of the Garvaghy road—whom I met and spoke to last week—along with the police, Church leaders and some in the Unionist tradition who, over weeks and months, have made determined efforts to reach agreement. But does the Secretary of State accept that it is his responsibility to set the political framework within which local negotiations can take place with a hope of success? Does he accept that his failure to act, as we and many others have urged for many months, in a proactive way to help to resolve disputes and contentious parades makes him partly responsible for the failure to reach a local agreement?
The Secretary of State has announced today a review, with details and terms of reference to follow. Does he understand that such an unspecific announcement of a general review is not the most helpful at this time? Will he consider some of the suggestions that have been made for an independent commission to address matters such as guidelines for the conduct of parades that respect tradition but eliminate intimidation and triumphalism; helping to ensure that decisions about the routing of parades are made in a fair and consistent fashion; and the effectiveness of the existing law in relation to parades?
Let me make it clear that we are not arguing that operational matters relating to marches should be taken out of the hands of the police; nor do we want to undermine the existing mediation efforts. But urgent steps must be taken. When can we expect the details of the review? When will it begin? What will be its status? When will it report? The people of Northern Ireland want answers to these important questions.
On the broader political level, we welcome the Secretary of State's announcement this afternoon that he will meet the Irish Foreign Minister, Dick Spring, tomorrow. Working together, the two Governments have given impetus to the search for peace. They must set the example by co-operating now if they expect the parties in Northern Ireland to climb over their frustration and anger also.
For our part, the Opposition have maintained a bipartisan approach, based on the two Governments' endorsements of the principles and proposals outlined in the Anglo-Irish Agreement, the Downing street declaration and the joint framework document. Our support, like today, has sometimes been critical, but it is, I hope, always constructive. What I have said this afternoon is entirely in that spirit.
It would greatly help if everybody involved in this disastrous situation would acknowledge their part in its creation and stand up and take their share of the blame. That includes those who have threatened force to achieve their ends, those who have failed to act in advance and those—among whom I include myself—who failed to press their case for early action to sufficient effect.
Many parallels have been drawn in the press today with the events of 1969. If we can learn anything from the violence and deaths of the intervening years, it is that we should all have the courage to do what is necessary, so that we do not live our history over again.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am grateful for the hon. Lady's congratulations to the security forces on the way in which they have handled these extremely difficult and dangerous circumstances in Northern Ireland, and on the recent finds in London. I am glad to agree that the rule of law is paramount in any democratic and decent society.
I also agree that, for some time at Drumcree, the RUC was put in an impossible position, as the Chief Constable made clear yesterday in the interview to which I referred. I agree that, following the 6 July decision by the Chief Constable, a lawful order had been made that the return stage of the march should not go down the Garvaghy road. It was therefore the duty of all concerned to comply with that order—that duty was not complied with, and I greatly deplore that.
The hon. Lady said that failure to act on the part of the Government makes me responsible for the riots that took place. [HON. MEMBERS: "She did not say that."] It is her privilege to make any allegation of that character that she likes. I accept the full responsibility that properly lies with the Secretary of State, and have done for some four and a quarter years.
As I said, however, the Government have been far from idle during the period that elapsed after July last year. I will not repeat the particulars, but in fairness I should be allowed to remind the hon. Lady that I wrote to her on 7 March saying:

Regrettably attitudes on both sides have hardened, which does not inspire confidence although discussions continue. I also believe that other routes"—
I was referring earlier to the efforts of the Chief Constable and the RUC—
such as mediation network are involved and it is to be hoped they can assist others to find a solution. We are not, however, complacent. John Wheeler and officials are examining whether there are any other avenues of approach but the answer must lie with the various groups involved talking to each other and being prepared to accommodate views which do not coincide with their own. Failing that, the RUC will endeavour to minimise the problems associated with individual parades.
In June, I wrote to the hon. Lady in reply to a further letter from her, saying that, having set up a working group internally,
an independent body to advise the police about individual contentious parades
was not an idea that had more going for it than against it. Towards the end of that letter, I said:
I do not … have a closed mind on this issue; the subject is one that might well usefully be addressed in the current Political Talks or the Forum, and in any event I will wish to revisit the whole question of parades in the light of our experience during the current marching season.
I also said:
John Wheeler has been doing a great deal of work behind the scenes to try to persuade those organising the most controversial marches (and those who may have influence over the organisers) to adopt a more flexible attitude.
It is wise of the hon. Lady to welcome my announcement today. The review can, of course, hear any representations advocating any solution that any interested party may feel it right to make. We cannot conceivably anticipate the length of time that the review will take, but it is desirable that we follow that method as a possible way of ensuring that next year and thereafter Northern Ireland is not subject to the tortures that have disfigured it this month.

Mr. David Trimble: First, I repeat the appeal that my colleagues and I have made in the past week to the loyalist paramilitaries to maintain their ceasefire, whatever the circumstances and whatever may happen. The people of Northern Ireland earnestly hope that that ceasefire will be maintained, even if other ceasefires have not been.
The Secretary of State referred to a review on the management of parades. Will that review extend to the public order legislation introduced within the past decade, which has manifestly failed? Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman also give some indication of what he intends to do before next year, because we are not out of the woods yet and significant problems are not far ahead, which will require urgent attention?
Does the Secretary of State agree that the first priority must be to try to restore public confidence in Northern Ireland in the political process, and that that will not be done by actions such as those of the Social Democratic and Labour party in adopting the Sinn Fein policy of abstention, particularly with regard to the democratic element of the talks process to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred? That process is a package, and it has to be considered as a whole.
We will not restore confidence by promoting the Anglo-Irish process, which has been part of the problem, especially with regard to Portadown but also generally with regard to the people of Northern Ireland. It is part of the problem, not the solution.
However, I welcome the Secretary of State's proposal to consult political parties. I suggest that that should be done as quickly as possible and that the focus should be on the major political parties, by which I mean those that participated in the 1992 talks. We need consultation, whether individually or, preferably, jointly, as soon as possible to see where we go from here, and to find whether we can in some way add to confidence in the community.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I warmly endorse and welcome the hon. Gentleman's appeal to the loyalist organisations to maintain their ceasefire.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether the review will extend to the public order legislation. It should be entirely open to the review to consider whether the legislation is sufficient or whether—and, if so, in what ways—it should be amended and enhanced.
The hon. Gentleman asked about immediate steps to deal with urgent problems that are on the horizon, or nearer than the horizon, before we enter next year's marching season. It is important that there should be a discussion of these matters as soon as possible within the substantive talks. It is very important that all of us—that includes the Government—should seek to analyse and proclaim the lessons to be learned from the hideous events of the past 10 days. I believe that there are very many in Northern Ireland who have been deeply shocked by what has occurred, who will wish to reflect, and are already reflecting deeply, on the way forward.
I very much regret any suggestion that any party may make about withdrawing from the forum. The forum was the immediate purpose of the elections and I believe that it is a sad thing if any party is to withdraw from a forum in which it is open to all in Northern Ireland to make their views known about the issues of the hour, including the present issue.
I regret that there should be any notion that the future of Northern Ireland is advanced by people excluding themselves rather than furthering an inclusive process, which certainly extends, on proper terms, to the talks process itself. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's acceptance of the need for consultations with the parties, and the Government look forward to carrying them forward.

Mr. Tom King: Does my right hon. and learned Friend recognise that, as my time of office started with trouble on the Garvaghy road and tunnel at Portadown and included the bomb at Enniskillen, it would be easy to believe that nothing has changed in Northern Ireland? Yet I profoundly believe that, so enormous has been the welcome for the period of peace that was achieved—and so manifest the benefits to the Province—and so ghastly have been the implications of the past week, that nothing could more clearly underline the importance of the work to which he has set his hand and of continuing the political efforts to try to achieve a sensible accommodation between the different interests.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend, who speaks with great experience of the office that I have the privilege to hold. He speaks of the paramount importance of a political talks process as offering the only alternative to violence and force as a means of securing political objectives. I believe that the

huge majority of people in Northern Ireland will endorse what he has said, and seek to see that that view is implemented and carried through.

Sir David Steel: My right hon. and hon. Friends welcome the review into parading and marching that the Secretary of State has announced. Does he accept that the right to demonstrate and march is carefully safeguarded throughout the United Kingdom, but that it cannot be extended to a right to march on a precise route in a provocative manner that has been deemed unwise by the chief constable? That is an extension of the right which does not apply in any part of the United Kingdom.
Does the Secretary of State also accept that we in this House are entitled to expect fellow parliamentarians who describe themselves as loyalists to show a higher standard of leadership than we saw during last week, higher leadership than simply to say, "There is a crowd—I must follow it"? Does he accept that we in the Liberal Democrat party support the Government in their pursuit of the political talks in the Province and in their dialogue with the Government of the Republic? I hope that that dialogue will resume very soon.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I have said that we expect to have further dialogue. I hope that we shall do so this week, in the talks process and in a meeting under the conference. I intend to provide the occasion for the representations that I have already mentioned in my statement.
I acknowledge what the right hon. Gentleman has said about the importance of the right to march, to parade and to demonstrate one's feelings, culture and identity. I also agree that that right has to be qualified. It certainly has to be qualified by an obligation to obey an order lawfully made by a chief constable. It is not helpful for me to engage in attributions of blame, certainly not of individual blame. Each of us here in the House is responsible for his own conduct.

Mr. Michael Mates: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that those of us who comment on, take an interest in and speak out on these matters, mostly from the comfort of an English armchair, would be well advised to refrain from criticising a senior police officer who has done his very best in the most difficult circumstances to take operational decisions which sometimes have to be taken on the spur of the moment? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that he should be commended for the job that he is doing, however much it has brought opprobrium on him, when he was doing what he thought was right?
Does my right hon. and learned Friend also agree that those who have come to this House from time to time urging that the law be not broken owe it to us to ensure that they do not disobey laws of which they may disapprove, and that defiance of the law and of police forces trying to enforce the law is equally unacceptable from whichever side of the community it comes?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I very much welcome what my hon. Friend has said about the Chief Constable. He has taken an unparalleled degree of personal criticism. I reiterate what I said in my statement on behalf of the Government: we uphold each of the decisions that he took.
The second decision was taken in very different circumstances from the first. It would have been a weak man who, recognising that the situation had deteriorated gravely since the original decision on 6 July, none the less, through fears of facile accusations of a U-turn, held in inappropriate circumstances to the same decision. There are some questions that can be ducked from the safety of non-responsibility, and some questions have been ducked by those in high places who have expressed their view recently. The one person who cannot duck an essential and central question is the Chief Constable.
I agree with what my hon. Friend has said about the mutual character of the obligations that are imposed by the rule of law.

Mr. Thomas McAvoy: The Secretary of State is correct to say that we must all now look forward, but he should be aware that the test of history will be applied to his actions, his behaviour and his conversations on the morning of 11 July. Bearing in mind recent reports in the media that the Prime Minister's feelings have been hurt, and that he has refused to sanction meetings with the Irish Government because he is in a huff, does the Secretary of State accept that it is unacceptable to the people of the United Kingdom that, while people are dying and being evicted from their houses, we have a Prime Minister sulking in Downing street?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman, who takes a close interest in the affairs of Northern Ireland and frequently expresses, if I may say so, reasonable and sensible views, should have fallen far short of the level that the hour requires. He may not have heard me say that there is to be a meeting in the intergovernmental conference between the two Governments for the purpose that I have described. Therefore, it is regrettable, and I think that he will come to regret it, that he began his question in the way that he did.
One gets used to the knowledge that history will judge one's actions. I do not care what history says: I care that I discharge sensibly and properly the obligations that are imposed on me. I am able, in the context of criticism that has been laid, to point to what was said by the Chief Constable yesterday and previously. He said unequivocally that he was subjected to no political interference or influence at the beginning, in the middle or at the end of that episode. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman can reject that if he likes.

Mr. Andrew Hunter: I warmly welcome and support my right hon. and learned Friend's statement. May I invite him to revisit some of the ground that he has covered? Does he agree that there are now three priorities—to uphold public order and to protect life and property, to promote dialogue, communication and contact among those who are genuinely committed to non-violence and democracy—because there is no other way forward—and to secure harmonious relations with the Government of the Republic of Ireland, whose understanding, support and friendship in key respects is so essential?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: My hon. Friend is absolutely right in all three of the priorities he addresses and it is

right to uphold, above all, the sanctity of life and the safety of people. Injustice to people has been paramount in the consequences of violence of the character that we have seen. The promotion of contact between all sides of the community is very important and must be pursued, especially in the light of what has happened.
Harmonious relations with the Republic of Ireland are also important. I have had to respond robustly to what I knew to be unjust criticisms uttered over the weekend, but we must get through this period, as I am certain we shall, and resume the constructive and forward-looking relationships that have always characterised progress in this area.

Mr. Tony Benn: The Secretary of State asks us to be objective, but he left one factor out of his account—the role of Britain in Ireland over many centuries. During the years of British jurisdiction, peace and social justice have never been achieved, and, since partition, no Government, Labour or Conservative—even when troops were sent in, as happened when I was in the Cabinet in 1969—have ever achieved anything.
It is clear from the events of the past few days not only that the nationalists are pursuing their desire for freedom from Britain, but that the so-called loyalists will be loyal only as long as they can control what the police and the Government do. Therefore, in a sense, a consensus is emerging, because neither community in the north trusts the British Government. The time is coming when we shall have to consider the truth, which the world knows—that Britain cannot and should not exercise jurisdiction, and that any peace force would have to be international, and not made up of British forces.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman will carry any significant support for his last point. It cannot be proper for any Government of the United Kingdom to cut loose a province of the United Kingdom in which a substantial majority of people wish to remain part of the United Kingdom, and have demonstrated that in vote after vote. I do not believe that the course that the right hon. Gentleman has proposed is honourable.
I recognise, unlike some who describe themselves as "loyalist", that there has been a selective approach to loyalty, in the sense that some have thought it acceptable to perpetrate the violence I have described this afternoon against, in particular, the Royal Ulster Constabulary, whose function and duty it is to maintain the Queen's peace.
The right hon. Gentleman is associated, above all, with democracy and being a democrat, and I hope that he will recognise that adherence to democracy in the context of Northern Ireland involves not only giving but honouring the constitutional guarantee that the status of Northern Ireland will remain unchanged unless and until most people living there freely indicate that they want it to change.

Mr. Norman Lamont: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that he has aroused great sympathy and admiration for the way in which he has dealt with his awe-inspiring responsibilities? Is it not time to recognise that there is no "middle way" between Unionism and nationalism—to use the phrase of the Irish


Foreign Minister? If we pursue a middle way that does not exist, there is a danger that we will arouse nationalist expectations that cannot be fulfilled and provoke a reaction from the majority. Therefore, is it not time to consider a fresh approach that would see Ulster governed more like the rest of the United Kingdom?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's initial comments. He said that there is no "middle way" between Unionism and nationalism—by definition, the two lead in opposite directions. However, in using that phrase, I hope that my right hon. Friend does not mean that there is no practicable means by which Unionists and nationalists can co-exist in tranquillity in Northern Ireland. I do not think that he means that.

Mr. Lamont: indicated dissent.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I see my right hon. Friend shaking his head, and I am not surprised. Therefore, the Government are not seeking to help the people of Northern Ireland achieve a "middle way" between Unionism and nationalism, but are seeking to achieve that tranquil co-existence. I do not believe that, in practical terms, seeking to administer Northern Ireland as though it had no problems not to be found in Surrey, Kent or Westmorland is likely to achieve the tranquillity and the acceptance by nationalists and Unionists of their ability to live together that my right hon. Friend and the whole Government wish to see.

Mr. Clive Soley: Is not the sad truth that a very impressive Chief Constable has seen his authority undermined, because the rule of law was not upheld? It is his duty to exercise the Queen's writ in Northern Ireland, and it is the Government's duty to support him when mob rule threatens the police. The charge against the Government is that they did not uphold the rule of law.
Does the Secretary of State agree that the only way to put right this desperate situation is to make it clear that the Orange Order or any other organisation—Unionist or nationalist—will never again be able to exercise a veto over the lawful decisions of the police or the British Government?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am very sorry to hear the hon. Gentleman speak in those terms—HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—and I shall say why. The hon. Gentleman criticises the Government, whom he alleges failed to support the Chief Constable and the police in the face of violence.
I have made it clear that the Chief Constable had to consider his powers, which Parliament has conferred upon him. He must consider whether there is a risk of serious disorder in one circumstance or another: in the case of a march that continues, or a march that is banned. Therefore, by definition, Parliament has recognised that there is a foreseeable risk that violence will be offered in Northern Ireland in one circumstance or another. It has told the Chief Constable that he must consider that matter.
When he made his first decision to ban the return stage of the march, I heard no one in nationalist or Irish circles complain that, in banning the march in the face of threatened disorder, the Chief Constable was bowing the

knee to violence. I never heard that criticism—which would have been quite unjust. It is interesting to note that only when a decision adverse to their interests is made five days later and in different circumstances is the Chief Constable told that he is bowing the knee to violence and that the Government—who were not criticised initially, either—have somehow connived in that. I reject that claim.

Mr. David Wilshire: I commend my right hon. and learned Friend for the calm way in which he has handled the tragic events. Does he agree that the Irish Prime Minister's intemperate comments confirm what some of us have thought for a long time: that the Dublin Government believe that the Anglo-Irish Agreement gives them control over the internal affairs of the United Kingdom and the right to demand that British Ministers explain themselves to a foreign Government? If that is so, is it not time to consider ending the Anglo-Irish Agreement?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I thank my hon. Friend for what he said at the outset. I made it clear, as it was my duty to do as soon as I heard them, my view of the remarks made by the Taoiseach, which were mentioned by my hon. Friend. I do not want to dwell unnecessarily on them; it is necessary for us to look forward, to move on in the old constructive way that has always characterised in recent times the relationship between the two Governments.
Let me make one thing additionally clear. No Government exercise control over Northern Ireland save the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and so long as that remains the wish—freely expressed—of most people in Northern Ireland, that will continue to be the case. I do not recognise the assertion that the Irish Government reckon that the Anglo-Irish Agreement gives them control over what happens in Northern Ireland. The agreement gives them the right to make representations about many things, but control exists in this Government only, and that, subject to the qualification I mentioned, will remain the case.

Mr. Ken Maginnis: The Secretary of State will realise that the Killyhevlin hotel is in my constituency, that the bomb damage there places in jeopardy dozens of full-time and part-time jobs, and that the incident undermines the tourist infrastructure in my constituency. Does he agree, however, that, when people hoot derision rather than listen to what is being said by those of us who understand what is happening in Northern Ireland, those of us who regret and condemn violence from whatever quarter it comes in Northern Ireland must remind them that it was not against the background of any march that Canary wharf occurred, that Hammersmith occurred, that Manchester occurred, that Warrington occurred, that a Garda officer was shot in Adare, that my constituents were murdered at a Royal British Legion parade in Enniskillen nine years ago?
All those things should be reckoned with and understood by the House when it tries to make judgments against people who are afraid that their civil rights, and their very right to exist as an integral part of the United Kingdom, are being slowly and deliberately eroded and taken from them.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: There are many fears, many anxieties and very deep feelings—some of them of a character that the hon. Gentleman just described—held


right across the community in Northern Ireland. That is one of the great difficulties. I recognise, of course, the hon. Gentleman's close association with the Killyhevlin hotel in Enniskillen, and I recognise the grievous injury that has been done to the hotel, but more importantly, of course, to the individuals who suffered shock and injury.
I also recognise that none of the earlier episodes that the hon. Gentleman mentioned is connected in any way with any march. I only hesitate to follow him down that line of thinking lest I be thought to agree with anybody who would suggest that any grievance of whatever character can justify the sort of things that have happened in the past few years—I know that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that.
The truth of the matter is that life is sacrosanct. Nothing can justify the taking of a life. I return to what the Chief Constable said yesterday in his interview, that the protection of proper sensitivities about the Garvaghy road could never be traded for a single life, and that was the justification for the decision that he took.

Sir Peter Hordern: I welcome the inquiry into future marches into the Province, but does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is most unwise ever to question the operational judgment of a senior Chief Constable, as has happened in this case, whose charge it is to preserve the safety of individuals in the Province, and that is so whether that criticism comes from this country or from the Prime Minister of a foreign country? Will my right hon. and learned Friend acknowledge that now is the time for all sides to show commitment to the peace process, not only from this country and from all parties, but from Dublin as well?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I warmly endorse what my right hon. Friend has said. One becomes used to the versatility of one's critics, and I dare say that the Chief Constable does as well. He has been criticised because, it is said, there was political interference; he has denied that. Then there are those who say, "Well, if there was not political interference, there should have been. That is not a matter for the Chief Constable, but a matter for the House."
Let me tell my right hon. Friend why I think that public confidence demands that such decisions shall rest not with a politician, but with a Chief Constable or other senior police officer. I do not think that the public would have confidence in an alternative system that enabled a Minister to say, "Our political opponents are going to have a march next week. We will soon stop that: we will use the public order legislation."
I very much agree with what my right hon. Friend said about the importance of the peace talks process, and with what he has had to say about the importance of the democratic will of people being heard, heeded and acceded to. He is a very experienced Member of the House, and I am grateful to him for what he has said.

Mr. David Winnick: I am one of those—including the majority of Members of Parliament—who believe that, over 25 years, we have been right to respect the views of the majority community in Northern Ireland and their wish to remain part of the United Kingdom, and thus right to oppose terrorist violence.
Is it not the case, however, that, time and again, large elements of the loyalist community have used force and intimidation? That happened last week, and it happened in 1974, when the loyalists disagreed with a power-sharing agreement reached by the United Kingdom Parliament. At the end of the day, is there not a limit to the patience of the British people in dealing with Northern Ireland? The loyalist elements who demonstrated last week, breaking the law, should recognise that.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I acknowledge the view that the hon. Gentleman has consistently taken about the pre-eminence of the majority, and the majority view, in a democracy—provided that that view is freely expressed and the contrary view can also be freely expressed. I acknowledge that the hon. Gentleman has taken a wholly consistent, and, if I may say so, courageous line on that. I also acknowledge that large numbers of those who purported to support the Union have, over the past 10 days, defied the security forces, including a police force whose duty it is to uphold the law for everyone's sake, and indulged in violence.
When the hon. Gentleman spoke of a limit to the patience of the British people, I wondered where he would take that. I feared that he was going to say, "Cut the place loose." I firmly believe that that is not something that the majority of the British people will ever agree to, contrary to the democratic wishes of people in Northern Ireland; nor should that ever happen. I think, however, that the hon. Gentleman was referring to a limit to patience with people who apply double standards. I think that that patience ran out a long time ago, and that that should be made very clear.

Mr. Barry Porter: My right hon. and learned Friend will have noticed the absence from the Chamber not only of the SDLP but of the Democratic Unionist party. Apparently they think that the political process is all over, and from their point of view, it probably is. That reality must be faced.
May I echo the views of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) and my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire)? We shall not get very far unless we face reality, and the reality is that part of the problem is the Anglo-Irish Agreement. At least it is worth looking at. The problem posed by the agreement was that it caused unrealistic expectations in the nationalist community, and put the fear of God into the Unionists. We must look at that very soon.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I hope that my hon. Friend, who also takes a consistent and close interest in the affairs of Northern Ireland, will allow me to remind him that the talks process is a process within which, among other things, the Anglo-Irish Agreement can be reviewed, considered and amended or changed, and that that has been the consistent position of both Governments for many years. They are prepared to consider a replacement for the Anglo-Irish Agreement, if it will secure wider acceptance. Therefore, this is yet another reason why the talks process should be maintained and sustained, despite the difficulties.

Miss Kate Hoey: In condemning utterly the violence and intimidation of the past week, may I urge the Secretary of State to take whatever measures


are necessary to ensure that the rule of law is maintained in Northern Ireland so that people can sleep safely in their beds?
Given the Anglo-Irish Agreement, however, will the Secretary of State say how he felt about what I personally thought were sad remarks by the Taoiseach at the weekend? Should we not remind the Taoiseach that, while the Republic of Ireland still lays an illegal claim to Northern Ireland through articles 2 and 3 of the Republic's constitution, frankly, it does not make the pro-Union majority in Northern Ireland feel confident about the Republic of Ireland Government's views?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: Anyone in the House who knows the interest that the hon. Lady has always taken will not have been surprised to hear her condemn the violence of the past period. I readily accept, of course, the opportunity she offers me to say that all practicable steps will be taken to maintain and to uphold the rule of law.
The hon. Lady referred to the remarks of Mr. Bruton, the Taoiseach. I have made my view on those clear and I do not want to dwell on them, although it was right that I should have spoken as I did, because we feel strongly that it was a great pity that they were uttered in those terms and in those circumstances; but one must not dwell unduly on these matters. One must take the opportunity to come together, to thrash them out—which is what I intend to do, among other things, at an early opportunity—and to come together again and make common cause in what we have a common interest in: a constructive way to help people in Northern Ireland come through to a settled accommodation of their differences.

Mr. Tony Marlow: How does my right hon. and learned Friend react to the widely held view that the first essential is for a large degree of constitutional certainty—that Northern Ireland is, and is likely for the foreseeable future to remain, an integral part of the United Kingdom, and that Her Majesty's Government have and will continue to have sole responsibility for the government of Northern Ireland? On that stable basis, it would be possible to devise a strategy to take account of the aspirations and interests of all sections of the community.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I very much agree that, if stability is to be achieved, there is a need for a wide degree of constitutional certainty, and I am surprised to infer from what my hon. Friend says that that is not present in Northern Ireland at the moment. In modern times, no one has taken more pains to express the constitutional guarantee than my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I have already recited today what it says. I will not do so again, but there can be no doubt whatever about the Government's determination to uphold and to honour that guarantee. In fairness, I have never heard it suggested on behalf of the official Opposition that it would be less safe with them—I hope and trust that that would be the case. Therefore, that certainty is there, or the grounds for it are there, and it is incumbent on all of us who have a claim to speak in public on these matters not to do anything to cast doubt on it.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Secretary of State aware that it stretches the bounds of credibility for him to tell us and the nation that, somehow or other, in the middle of the crisis last week, the Government played no part in the Chief Constable changing his mind?
Just over 10 years ago, the same Government found a way, somehow or other, of instructing every chief constable, in every coalfield area in Britain—in Durham, Scotland, Wales, Derbyshire and Yorkshire—to tell miners that they could not go here, there or anywhere, and 11,000 of them were arrested. The real reason for the Government's double standards is that the miners did not wear orange sashes and bowler hats, and did not have the Government's fate in their hands.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am glad to have an opportunity to resume my contest with the hon. Gentleman, who, in the days when I had responsibility as a Law Officer, used to assume the mantle of the National Union of Mineworkers' vicar upon the surface and engaged me in weekly contests.
The hon. Gentleman says that it strains credulity. I do not care whether the hon. Gentleman believes the Chief Constable or me. I have a duty to carry out my responsibilities in the way that I have described. Of course it may be easier to accept the word of those who carry public responsibilities in Derbyshire, and if that is the hon. Gentleman's view, so be it: I can live with that, philosophically. The Chief Constable has said what happened, and I endorse it.

Mr. Richard Spring: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, whatever the current difficulties of the peace process, it was overwhelmingly set back by the terrible bomb explosion at South Quay several months ago? Does he agree that the quickest way to restore calm and the prospect of long-term stability in Northern Ireland would be a declaration of an immediate cessation of violence by the IRA and a ceasefire?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the issue that is at the heart of the danger to peace—the IRA's abandonment of its ceasefire. One of the tragedies of recent events is that that has been lost sight of.
There is only one way to secure peace in Northern Ireland, and it is by all concerned not only signing up to the Mitchell principles of non-violence and democracy but honouring them. Of course, before that can lead to an invitation to take part in the talks process, there has first and foremost to be an unequivocal restoration of the ceasefire by the IRA. Events such as those that my hon. Friend describes make it difficult to see how that can be regarded as unequivocal in the short term.

Mr. John D. Taylor: Can the Secretary of State confirm that the Army and the police were subjected to attacks by bricks and petrol bombs at Garvaghy road on Thursday 11 July? If that is right, does it not seem odd that that behaviour by the people of Garvaghy road was described last night on Radio Telefis Éireann in Dublin by the southern Irish Prime Minister as disciplined and carried out peacefully and with dignity?
Again for the purposes of the record, can the Secretary of State confirm that the RUC arrested at least 100 loyalists in the first four days of last week and cleared


dozens of roads, since Cardinal Daly went to church in Portadown last night and alleged that the RUC had not arrested any loyalists or cleared any roads? That is in the Irish News today.
As we look forward to the future, may I ask the Secretary of State, who has stressed the importance of accommodation and dialogue, whether he welcomes the decision by the Ulster Unionist party to be at the multi-party talks tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock at Stormont, expecting to see all other parties present?
Does the Secretary of State accept that underlying all these problems has been, first, the breach of the ceasefire by the IRA and, secondly, the role of the Anglo-Irish Agreement and the lack of trust that it is continually building up in Northern Ireland? Does he also accept that, regretfully, more and more people are being pushed to the position stated by Edmund Burke, who said:
There is, however, a limit at which forbearance ceases to be a virtue"?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: It is, of course, right that, when the RUC attempted to maintain order as, under its control, a limited march went down the Garvaghy road on the 11th, it came under fire, and bricks and petrol bombs were used. I think that it is right that some 2,000 petrol bombs had been manufactured and were fired. However, I speak from recollection, and would not wish to be held precisely to that. The point is that a very hostile reception of that character had been prepared.
It is also the case that many loyalists had been arrested previously by the RUC. I shall not comment on the merits of any of those cases, but the fact is that many loyalists had been arrested. I believe that that gives the lie to the charge that the RUC showed itself to be partisan and partial.
I, too, welcome the fact that the Ulster Unionist party will be present at the talks tomorrow. I do not want to add—I do not need to add—to what I have said about the paramount importance of that process, and of it being as inclusive as possible on proper and equal terms.
I have already mentioned the breach of the ceasefire. It is of central importance, and is totally unjustified in a democracy.
I do not think that I want to or need to add anything to what I have said about the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Thank you. We shall now move on.

Points of Order

Ms Glenda Jackson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. On 24 June this year, I received a response to a question that I had asked of the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office with responsibility for the Overseas Development Administration, about whether Her Majesty's Government would pay closer attention to Madam Aung San Suu Kyi's consistent calls for no encouragement of western business interests in her country until the State Law and Order Restoration Council shows a real commitment to democracy.
The Minister assured me that Her Majesty's Government are in very close contact with Madam Aung San Suu Kyi, and that they pay close attention to what she says. However, there were reports in yesterday's newspapers—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must read her point of order. Reports in newspapers and exchanges across the Floor of the House are not my responsibility as Speaker. I deal with the House's procedures. What procedures may I deal with now?

Ms Jackson: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am asking for your advice. The reply that I received—Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. Is this a request for advice or a point of order? If the hon. Lady requires procedural advice, she may come to my office at any time or see the learned Clerks. I should now like to know what is the hon. Lady's point of order, and what she is asking me to deal with.

Ms Jackson: Madam Speaker, the point of order is that a Minister of State, in response to a question from me, led the House to believe that the Government had a uniform policy on the calls made by Madam Aung San Suu Kyi in Burma. However, reports in yesterday's and today's newspapers underline the fact that the Department of Trade and Industry—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. If the hon. Lady has a matter to pursue with the Minister, she must pursue it properly across the Floor of the House at Question Time.

Rev. Martin Smyth: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I appreciate your difficulty in calling on all hon. Members after statements, but today the Ormeau road in my constituency was specifically mentioned, and I was not given an opportunity to deal with the issues. I crave your indulgence, and ask for an opportunity to put the record straight before the House rises for the summer recess.

Madam Speaker: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point of order, and I have sympathy with him. I do my best to call all hon. Members who I think have a deep interest in a matter, and he certainly has such an interest in this matter. I am sure that he realises that, out of the


five hon. Members in his party who wanted to intervene after the statement, I was able to call three of them. I am sorry that I missed him out, and I shall do better next time.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Is this a similar point of order—that the hon. Gentleman was not called?

Mr. Dykes: Madam Speaker, with your indulgence, is it in order to register my interest as a member of the British-Irish parliamentary body?

Madam Speaker: I have a complete list of hon. Members who are members of the Select Committee, the British-Irish parliamentary body, the Conservative Back-Bench committee and the Opposition Back-Bench committee. If I called them all, we would never be able to get on with the House's business. Is anyone else disappointed?

Mr. Jerry Hayes: Yes, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: I have noted that; thank you. Now we can move on.

Mr. David Faber: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Is it a genuine point of order?

Mr. Faber: Madam Speaker, it is not only a new point of order, but it is the first point of order that I have raised in my four years in the House—so I hope that it will impress upon you the importance that I attach to the issue. Today, a conference on the subject of Europe is taking place in Trowbridge, in my constituency. Originally it was to be organised by West Wiltshire district council, but it seems to have been hijacked by the ruling Liberal

Democrat group—as I can think of no other reason for the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) to be there today to chair the conference.
I do not ask you to rule on the hon. Gentleman's suitability as a chairman of the conference or to sympathise with my constituents on having to have foisted upon them his views on Europe, but is it not a common courtesy of the House—one which I know that you hold very dear—for hon. Members to inform other hon. Members when they visit their constituencies?

Madam Speaker: That is absolutely correct. I am sorry that it has even been necessary for the hon. Gentleman to initiate a point of order on such an issue. He was right to do so, and I hope that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) will make note of it and offer an apology to him for appearing in his constituency without the courtesy of informing him.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: On a point of order, Madam Speaker—and a genuine one. I say that as an someone who was born and bred in Ireland but never recognised. Last week I raised privately with you, Madam Speaker, and subsequently with the Serjeant at Arms the question of vehicles entering the Palace, particularly Government cars and when a Division has been called. I cannot identify the driver who nearly mowed down myself and about 20 other people, after hooting the car horn and shooting through the gate. Perhaps a 10 mph speed limit could be initiated in New Palace yard.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman's remarks will have been heard by the Serjeant at Arms, and I will take that matter up with him to see what can be done.

BILL PRESENTED

MAGISTRATES' COURTS (AMENDMENT)

Mr. Alex Carlile presented a Bill to make provision with regard to the power to imprison for fine default: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Monday 14 October and to be printed. [Bill 175.]

Orders of the Day — Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 1

EXTENSION OF SPECIAL APPEALS PROCEDURES

Lords amendment: No. 1, leave out clause 1 and insert the following new clause—

EXTENSION OF SPECIAL APPEALS PROCEDURES

(". For paragraph 5 of Schedule 2 to the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 ("the 1993 Act") there shall be substituted the following paragraph—
5.—(1) This paragraph applies to an appeal by a person on any of the grounds mentioned in subsections (1) to (4) of section 8 of this Act if the Secretary of State has certified that, in his opinion, the person's claim on the ground that it would be contrary to the United Kingdom's obligations under the Convention for him to be removed from, or be required to leave, the United Kingdom is one to which—

(a) sub-paragraph (2), (3) or (4) below applies; and
(b) sub-paragraph (5) below does not apply.

(2) This sub-paragraph applies to a claim if the country or territory to which the appellant is to be sent is designated in an order made by the Secretary of State by statutory instrument as a country or territory in which it appears to him that there is in general no serious risk of persecution.
(3) This sub-paragraph applies to a claim if, on his arrival in the United Kingdom, the appellant was required by an immigration officer to produce a valid passport and either—

(a) he failed to produce a passport without giving a reasonable explanation for his failure to do so; or
(b) he produced a passport which was not in fact valid and failed to inform the officer of that fact.

(4) This sub-paragraph applies to a claim if—

(a) it does not show a fear of persecution by reason of the appellant's race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion;
(b) it shows a fear of such persecution, but the fear is manifestly unfounded or the circumstances which gave rise to the fear no longer subsist;
(c) it is made at any time after the appellant—

(i) has been refused leave to enter under the 1971 Act,
(ii) has been recommended for deportation by a court empowered by that Act to do so,
(iii) has been notified of the Secretary of State's decision to make a deportation order against him by virtue of section 3(5) of that Act, or
(iv) has been notified of his liability to removal under paragraph 9 of Schedule 2 to that Act;

(d) it is manifestly fraudulent, or any of the evidence adduced in its support is manifestly false; or
(e) it is frivolous or vexatious.

(5) This sub-paragraph applies to a claim if the evidence adduced in its support establishes a reasonable likelihood that the appellant has been tortured in the country or territory to which he is to be sent.
(6) Rules of procedure under section 22 of the 1971 Act may make special provision in relation to appeals to which this paragraph applies.

(7) If on an appeal to which this paragraph applies the special adjudicator agrees that the claim is one to which—

(a) sub-paragraph (2), (3) or (4) above applies; and
(b) sub-paragraph (5) above does not apply,

section 20(1) of that Act shall not confer on the appellant any right to appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal.
(8) The first order under this paragraph shall not be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(9) A statutory instrument containing a subsequent order under this paragraph shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(10) In this paragraph—
`immigration officer' means an immigration officer appointed for the purposes of the 1971 Act;
`passport', in relation to an appellant, means a passport with photograph or some other document satisfactorily establishing his identity and nationality or citizenship."")

Read a Second time.

Mr. Jack Straw: I beg to move amendment (d) to the Lords amendment, in sub-paragraph (5), after 'claim', insert `(a)'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this, it will be convenient to take amendments (e), (f) and (b) and Lords amendment No. 35.

Mr. Straw: The amendments relate to the procedure in respect of the so-called white list of designated allegedly safe countries and the exclusion from the list's operation of applicants who can show reasonable evidence that they have been the victims of serious torture.
We have fundamental objections to the principle and practice of the so-called white list of safe countries—and would not operate it in government—because, under the 1951 United Nations convention on refugees, it is required that each application should be considered on its merits, yet the so-called white list permits the Secretary of State to designate countries in which it appears to him that, in general, there is no serious risk of persecution. The result is that all applications that arise from citizens or residents of designated countries will summarily be refused by the Secretary of State in a peremptory way.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Miss Ann Widdecombe): No.

. Straw: Well, there must be some purpose to the white list. If the Minister will just contain herself, I shall explain that the list will place a further onus of proof firmly on the applicant. If an applicant from a white list country will be dealt with no differently from an applicant from a non-white list country, the list will serve no purpose. The white list exists to put applicants from designated countries at a disadvantage.
The hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir J. Critchley), for reasons we all understand, is not in his place, but in a letter published in The Times today, he states that the Bill
will affect the genuine refugee as well
as bogus refugees. The hon. Gentleman adds:
It is of course impossible to distinguish the genuine from the fraudulent until a case has been thoroughly examined.


We share the hon. Gentleman's apprehension about the way in which that and many other provisions of the Bill will operate, in discriminating against genuine asylum seekers or individuals who would, if their applications were properly examined, be given exceptional leave to remain.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the white list could also speed up the process for certain immigrants? If the hon. Gentleman would like a fast track for all immigrants, will he commit the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer to the cost of additional immigration staff?

Mr. Straw: The white list system will speed up the process, but indiscriminately. Its purpose is to provide a fast track. In principle, the Government are saying that applicants from designated countries will not have a case. The Home Secretary has declared that in general, there is no risk of persecution—under the 1951 convention definitions—in white list countries. Therefore, a double burden of proof will be placed on applicants originating from those countries.
As to the lion. Gentleman's point on the need to increase and improve efficiency, if a Labour Government do as badly administratively in dealing with asylum applications as the present Government have done, we shall have failed. I remind the hon. Gentleman that in 1993, he voted in favour of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill, while we voted against, on the basis of the promise made by the then Home Secretary—and notwithstanding the fact that he anticipated that the number of applicants would increase—that applications would be dealt with in three months. They are taking about 18 months.

Miss Widdecombe: Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that even applicants from countries on the designated list will have their cases considered on their merits? Is there not an analogy to be drawn with the present situation, in which a small number of applicants even from most designated countries still manage to satisfy us of genuine need each year? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I assured the Standing Committee, of which he was not a member—I mean that as an observation, not a criticism—that there would be cases where it might be appropriate to remove applicants from the fast-track procedure and would do so?

Mr. Straw: I accept that the Minister believes that applications from individuals even from white list countries will be dealt with on their merits, but there is a logical inconsistency in the hon. Lady's case. Unless the white list ensures a more summary procedure, in which white list applicants will have fewer rights of scrutiny of their cases, it will serve no purpose.
Under examination in the House, the white list proposals fell apart—even more so in the other place, which is why Lords amendment No. 1 is before the House.

Mr. David Alton: I strongly endorse the hon. Gentleman's points. Is he aware that when the Committee considered some of the countries that are to appear on the designated list, Labour Members and others pointed out that the list would have a doubly

undesirable effect? Tyrants and despots the world over would hope to see their countries included on the so-called white list and use that for propaganda purposes, to pretend that everything was well from a human rights point of view.

Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point.
It was nicely ironic that in the other place the Minister of State, Lady Blatch, spoke about the independent evidence that would be available to Ministers and on which they would base their country assessments. Lady Blatch talked about the Carter Centre, Amnesty International and the US State Department. Would that the British Government had taken notice of the State Department's practice.
In the 1980s, the US faced a more difficult situation on asylum than confronts our country today, yet decided not to follow a white list procedure. One of the State Department's senior officials recently told me of the three reasons for that decision—all of them applicable to the UK. One is that they feared that the inclusion or exclusion of a country from the white list would generate considerable additional litigation in the US courts. That is, of course, almost certainly what would happen in this country. This area of the law is already very complicated and judicial review quite often has to occur because other powers of appeal are inadequate.
Secondly, to pick up directly on the point made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), the US State Department decided not to go down the road of a white list because of the adverse diplomatic consequences that it feared in respect of countries that were put on the list and then subsequently omitted. It also believed that, perversely, the omission of a country from the list in the first place would encourage asylum seekers to make applications.
The white list began, as we were led to believe, as a great long list. I understand that, now, only seven countries are likely to be designated: India, Pakistan, Ghana, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Poland and Romania. From general knowledge about those countries, one realises that, in almost every one, it is arguable whether there is no general risk of persecution under the convention definitions in respect of either the whole territory or all the communities.
India, for example, for which I have great affection, in which I have spent some time and from which I have many constituents, has achieved a remarkable amount as one of the major democracies of Asia. Although I fully accept that, generally, there is no risk of persecution, the argument cannot run in respect of some of the people in Kashmir, where the most severe difficulties remain.

Miss Emma Nicholson: Despite both his and my affection for India, does the hon. Gentleman not agree that were Mr. Rushdie to return there, there might be some fear of persecution? It is right that every case should be considered on its merits, irrespective of the country to which the person might be returning.

Mr. Straw: It depends to which part of the country Mr. Rushdie went, which, in a sense, makes my point and the hon. Lady's. Of course, each case must be considered on its merits.
Pakistan, sadly, has not had the same continuous democratic tradition as India. It is now operating under democratic institutions, but remains very fragile. In the Karachi area, there is a high degree of communal violence, not to say in some instances quite serious political violence. Indeed, it is in the living memory of everyone in the House that Governments in that country, under General Zia for example, routinely tortured political opponents, including, most notoriously but by no means exclusively, the former Prime Minister of Pakistan, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, the father of the present Prime Minister.
To pick up the point made by the hon. Member for Mossley Hill again, if Pakistan were on the white list and there was a change of regime, it would doubly complicate diplomatic questions to the Foreign Office and the high commission in Pakistan on whether and in what circumstances the country was to be removed from the white list. That would make it much more difficult for us to apply pressure on that country for a restoration of democratic political institutions.

Mr. Max Madden: Before my hon. Friend leaves the subject of Pakistan, will he comment on the continuing persecution faced by the religious Ahmadi community? Will he also press the Home Office to produce the home country assessment reports to which he referred? We are still waiting for such reports on India and Pakistan. When on earth will we get them, so that we may see the assessment that the Government are making of human rights in India and Pakistan?

Mr. Straw: The alleged persecution of that community highlights the fact that a country may, generally speaking, respect human rights, but particular communities in it might be the subject of intense persecution. The Government's blanket approach and their attempts to whitewash a country will obscure that issue, which was raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) and for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) in Committee.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West asks when we are likely to get the country assessments. The Minister is better qualified than me to answer that. I can say only that, when the matter was debated in the other place on 23 April, Baroness Blatch said repeatedly that the country assessments would be made available before any affirmative resolution came before the House and the other place asking for approval of the countries on the white list. That leads me directly to amendment (f).
Under pressure in the other place, the Government agreed that the initial list of countries on the white list should be the subject of the affirmative procedure, so that the House would have an opportunity to debate the inclusion of those countries in the list before the list was, as it were, set in concrete. Bizarrely, the Government refused to allow the same procedure to apply when countries that were not on the original list were added to it. That is completely inconsistent, and our amendment would set that right, while allowing Ministers to drop a country from the list when there has been a shift away from democratic institutions, without the immediate necessity to come back to the House.
On Report, in a debate initiated by the hon. Member for Mossley Hill, Ministers agreed that torture, even if it fell outside the 1951 convention, was a good ground on which exceptional leave to remain in this country should be given. The Under-Secretary gave various undertakings to that effect when the matter was debated earlier this year. Again, under pressure in the other place, Ministers finally agreed that the acceptance that torture outside the 1951 convention should be a ground for exclusion from the operation of the white list should be in the Bill, and it now appears in paragraph 5(5) of amendment No. 1.
Our amendment seeks to supplement that provision by providing that, if the person making the application claims to fear persecution in a country or territory where the United Nations committee against torture or the UN special rapporteur on torture has published documentary evidence of extensive practice of torture of the type or in the circumstances referred to in the claim, that person should be exempted from the white list fast-track procedure. I hope that our amendment finds favour with Ministers.

Miss Widdecombe: indicated dissent.

Mr. Straw: The Minister shakes her head, which, in India, of course, means an acceptance of the point. I hope that she has learnt that from visits to that country.
The amendment represents an important supplementary addition to what Ministers say is their concern as much as ours to ensure protection of victims from torture. It is drafted carefully and comes into play only when documentary evidence shows extensive practice of torture of the type and in the circumstances referred to in the claim.
As we have heard and know, India is proposed to be on the white list, yet I have the report of the Commission on Human Rights by the rapporteur on torture relating to India, especially Kashmir, with which my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North has kindly provided me. The rapporteur quite fairly details the allegations of torture that have been received and the Indian Government's response. The report states:
The Special Rapporteur transmitted 50 individual cases and received replies to 43 of these cases.
The document reveals substantial evidence of torture in Kashmir. I cannot say whether that evidence is wholly corroborated or substantiated. Sadly, neither can the special rapporteur because, according to the report,
He continues to believe … that the situation remains such that a visit to the country would be desirable and he regrets that the Government has not yet deemed it appropriate or opportune to invite him.

Mr. Piara S. Khabra: Does my hon. Friend accept that the Indian Government have set up a human rights commission that has greater powers to investigate cases of torture? In my opinion, that represents an advance in the protection of human rights in India, particularly in Kashmir.

5 pm

Mr. Straw: I accept that the Indian Government, certainly under Narasihma Rao, have made some moves towards ensuring that allegations of torture in Kashmir are properly investigated. As a good friend of India, when I


met Narasihma Rao four years ago, I said that the Indian Government's reputation had been damaged by their refusal to allow outsiders, including the United Nations rapporteur, to visit that country.

Ms Liz Lynne: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, because of the terrible human rights record in Indian Kashmir, India should not be on the white list? If he were Home Secretary, would India be on that white list?

Mr. Straw: This is not a reproach, but merely an observation. Had the hon. Lady been here at the start of my speech, she would have heard me say that no country would be on the white list. Let me make it absolutely clear that we do not accept the principle of a white list. We believe that it would be far more trouble than it was worth in practical terms. We also consider it unprincipled and we shall not operate it. Meanwhile, our amendment would moderate its effect.
Today is the last day for the House to debate the Bill. It is the worst, least justified measure before Parliament this Session. It comes only two years after the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993, in respect of which the former Minister, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) said:
It is important to make sure that the Asylum Act, which has only been in place for two years, works before we rush through a future piece of legislation.
However, Ministers have sought to rush through the legislation without effective scrutiny in a Special Standing Committee, as we proposed.
We all know the real motive behind the Bill, because the cat was let out of the bag in September 1995 by Mr. Andrew Lansley, former head of research at Conservative central office and now a Conservative candidate for a Cambridge constituency. He said:
Immigration, an issue we raised successfully in 1992 and again in the 1994 European election campaign, played particularly well in the tabloids and has more potential to hurt.
That is the motive behind the Bill. Everything that has occurred since has confirmed Mr. Lansley's chilling admission that the measure is about the use of the race card. I am pleased to say, however, that at least the British people have seen through the moral barrenness and practical vacuity of the measure, and the Government have not achieved the political support that they intended.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: I shall detain the House only briefly, but I should like to speak to amendment (h), in my name and those of hon. Members on both sides of the House.
The amendment seeks to clarify the position with regard to involuntary abortion and sterilisation. There was a very good and thorough debate in another place on Report, on art amendment moved by my noble Friend Lord Ashbourne, and many who spoke in that debate felt that amending the definition of torture was a more appropriate way of protecting the victims of enforced abortion.
During her speech on Report in another place, the Minister of State, my noble Friend Baroness Blatch, in an attempt to say that the Chinese Government did not support coercion, quoted the country reports on human rights practices for 1995. Those reports are submitted

annually by the US State Department to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House of Representatives Committee on International Relations. What my noble Friend did not say is clear from a letter sent last year to the House of Representatives Appropriation Committee by a distinguished expert on China, Mr. Stephen W. Mosher, stating:
the Government"—
of China—
blames instances of coercion on 'overzealous local officials' and asserts that such officials are punished as soon as their crimes are detected. None of the above claims are true … none of the provincial family planning regulations adopted since 1979 warns against coercion or specifies penalties for guilty officials. No case of an official being punished for using coercion has ever been cited in the media, although many cases of officials being punished for failing to meet their targets or quotas have appeared. Family planning workers are judged by their party superiors solely on the basis of how well they succeed in holding down the birth rate … All other considerations—including questions of coercion—are secondary.
My office recently received a letter from Maggie Wynne, director of the House pro-life caucus, to whom I pay tribute for her dedicated work. She tells me that in 1992 the People's Republic of China passed a law that laid down:
A man may not divorce a woman who is required by law to terminate her pregnancy for at least six months.
No requirement could be so heartless. What happens if the woman refuses to have an abortion? On that, the law is silent. I presume that the man can then divorce her—if so, then so much for equality.
Civilisations can be judged by how they treat women, children, old people and strangers. Vulnerable people bring out the kindness and the cruelty in every society. One such cruelty is enforced abortion.
I was gratified to read the comments of my noble Friend the Minister of State, who said that the Government would not remove a pregnant woman in circumstances where there was a likelihood that she would be subject to enforced abortion, until after the birth of the child. What would happen after the child was born? Would that woman then be deported? If so, she would face a great many dangers. If she were deported to China, she would be charged—and most likely convicted—with having an illegal child. She would then be forcibly sterilised and fined three or four times the annual wage in China. If she were unable to pay, her house would be demolished.
My noble Friend Baroness Blatch is honourable in her intentions, and I had no doubt whatever as to her sincerity when she said in another place that she would never return a pregnant woman. Unfortunately, future Ministers may not be as sympathetic; that is why I feel it so necessary that the amendment should be included in the Bill as a safeguard.

Miss Widdecombe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has raised an extremely important issue. She knows that I respect her amendment, although I am unable to accept it. Let me put her mind at rest on the point that she has just raised.
When considering whether to return anybody, of course we would consider the predicament that such an individual would then face. If the danger were limited purely to forcible abortion—and that was the only


danger—there would be no impediment to returning the woman after the birth of her child. But if she were to face further dangers of the sort outlined by my hon. Friend, that would create a different set of merits under which the case would be considered. We would not return someone to those dangers.

Mrs. Winterton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those reassurances. The only problem is that many reassurances given to the House in the past have not been kept. That is why I had hoped that the Government—who are opposed to enforced abortion—would accept this minor clarifying amendment. It rather disappoints me to hear that my hon. Friend will not do so.

Mr. Alton: I warmly agree with the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton), to whom I wish to make two points. First, a woman who presented herself to the Beijing embassy could say that she wanted to seek asylum in the United Kingdom by virtue of her second pregnancy, as she was facing an enforced abortion. In that case, the issue should not arise of whether she would be returned after the birth of her child. But would she be admitted to this country as an asylum seeker at that stage because of her pregnancy? Secondly, what are the implications for all the women in Hong Kong, which will return to communist Chinese rule a year from now?

Mrs. Winterton: The hon. Gentleman raises two extremely valid points, and I am sure that the House will have taken note of them. There is no doubt that practices in China and Hong Kong—when it rejoins mainland China—will not necessarily be ones that we would consider right and proper, and we shall have no jurisdiction over them whatever.
The House may be interested to know that the matter of enforced abortion was considered recently by the European Parliament—hardly a Conservative institution. An amendment to the budget was passed at a plenary session on 24 May this year to ensure that
Community assistance shall not be granted to any country … which permits or encourages coerced abortion, forced sterilisation or infanticide as a means of controlling population growth".

Miss Emma Nicholson: I fully support everything that the hon. Lady is saying. Will she expand her remarks to include the dreadful horror of genital mutilation that women face in some countries, forcing them to seek asylum? What are her comments on that?

Mrs. Winterton: I am delighted that—for once during our time in the House—the hon. Lady seems to be on the same side as me. That is quite unusual, and I absolutely agree with her remarks.
It was raised in another place that anyone who might have an abortion voluntarily in another country could then complain here that she was forced to have that abortion. I share that concern. However, there is no evidence that denying asylum to people whose claims are based on enforced abortion will be of any use in preventing false claims. The applicant must prove her claim, so she would have to show that she really did have the abortion against her will. People willing to lie to obtain asylum will simply

switch to another story. The solution to credibility problems is careful case-by-case adjudication, not wholesale denial.
Measures to prevent abuse of refugee programmes must distinguish between toughness and meanness. Britons must bear it in mind that the national attributes of which we are justly proud—liberty, decency and fairness—are not free goods. One of the costs that they impose is that we may not return people—even inconvenient people—to dangerous places for subjection to unspeakable acts.
In conclusion, I had hoped that my hon. Friend the Minister would accept this clarifying amendment, although I know that that will not happen. If she had accepted it, there would have been no ambiguity, and the House would have sent out a clear message that enforced abortion is rightly regarded as torture. But I hope that the House will, in due course, have an opportunity to express its opinion on what I believe to be one of the gravest human rights violations imaginable.

Mr. Alton: The amendments fall into three separate categories. Amendments (d) and (e) deal with torture, amendment (f) deals with the designated list, and amendment (b), which was ably spoken to by the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton), deals with a specific kind of torture that can be inflicted on a citizen.
I should like to begin by associating myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). I entirely agree with his comments about the designated list; I made similar comments in Committee and on Report. I gave the Committee examples such as Romania, which has been included on the designated list, where abuses of civil, political and religious liberties continue to this day. The danger of including countries on a designated list is that it provides propaganda for the people who run those countries—they are able to claim that their human rights regimes are up to western and civilised standards when that is not the case.
5.15 pm
In many countries—the hon. Member for Blackburn mentioned India—regional variations must be taken into account. What may be the wish of a Government nationally may not be what happens on the ground in some states and provinces, and a designated list cannot take that into account. That is why I will recommend that my right hon. and hon. Friends support the amendments as they apply to the designated list.
On torture, the hon. Member for Blackburn was good enough to mention the all-party amendment that I tabled on Report. I should like to pay tribute here to the Minister of State and her colleagues in another place for going some way to answer some of my points. I recognise that some movement has been made, and I am grateful. The Minister will know that, in another place, the Duke of Norfolk argued succinctly and eloquently about the need to put the word "torture" in the Bill. In a way, that has been attempted between the Bill's consideration in the House of Lords and its return to the Commons.
Amendment (b) aims to clarify what we mean by torture. One area in which there is insufficient clarification is the violation of women's rights. My hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Miss Nicholson) mentioned the mutilation of women as an example, and the hon. Member for Congleton stated what can happen to Chinese women who have more than one child.
I thought it mildly ironic that, last year, some 35,000 women gathered in Beijing to talk about women's rights. In what seemed to me to be almost the ultimate act of political correctness, motions were passed on everything under the sun, including guaranteeing sexual satisfaction to women the world over. Quite who will police these arrangements and what the penalties will be if satisfaction is not achieved I know not, but the women at the conference did not seem to notice the absence of the Chinese women who, clay in, day out, have their human rights violated.
The one-child policy makes China the only country in the world where it is illegal to have a brother or a sister. The implications for next year, not for some faraway country of which we know little, but for the women of Hong Kong, should be glaringly obvious to hon. Members. A friend of mine from Hong Kong told me recently that he thought it unsurprising that many of the women in families of his acquaintance were currently pregnant; they are seeking to avoid the draconian laws that will apply when Hong Kong reverts to Chinese rule.
We cannot claim to have no interest in this issue. Last year, the Government gave £8.5 million to the United Nations Fund for Population Activities, UNFPA, and £7.5 million to the International Planned Parenthood Federation, IPPF. That money was in turn channelled through the Chinese Population Association. A total of £100 million of British taxpayers' money in the past decade alone has aided, abetted and underwritten forced abortion, forcible sterilisation and the forcible fitting of IUDs, and it has been going on for more than 20 years.
There is not just sterilisation and abortion, but infanticide. Since the passing of legislation in China last year, handicapped and disabled babies have been left out to die, merely because of their disabilities, with the force of Chinese law. Surely that will be seen by historians as one of the most shameful episodes of human rights violation and abuse since the eugenics and genocide of the 1930s and 1940s.
Some hon. Members will have seen the film "The Dying Rooms" broadcast on Channel 4 in June 1995. Early this year, a return to the dying rooms was broadcast. Those broadcasts have had a profound effect on many people who simply did not believe that such things were going on in China, and I pay tribute to the brave journalists who made them. On 31 July, Anita Roddick, Paul McCartney, Elton John and Juliet Stevenson are launching a campaign called, "The Dying Rooms—Time for Action", which in their words will
outline the circumstances of hundreds of thousands of baby girls who are left to die in China each year".
At the height of the mass sterilisation campaign in the 1970s, the UNFPA gave China the first ever United Nations population award for its success in curbing population. The UNFPA provided training for central Government officials responsible for the policy; it provided computer systems to monitor the effectiveness of the programmes in reaching their targets; and it funded the building of two factories that have made China self-sufficient in IUD production. Some 41 per cent. of Chinese women have IUDs inserted, often against their will. They can do little about it. X-ray machines are used to ensure that they do not have them removed.
The UNFPA is a United Nations agency. The United Nations purports to guarantee the
right to freely found a family and decide on the number and spacing of the children.

In direct contradiction of that guarantee, the communist Chinese Minister for Family Planning, Mr. Qian Zinzhong has said:
The size of the family is far too important to be left to the couple. Births are a matter for state planning.
The Chinese one-child policy marks it out, uniquely, as a country in which it is illegal to have a brother or sister, where little girls are eliminated in favour of their brothers and where eugenics laws like those favoured by the eugenicists who founded the IPPF now permit the killing of disabled children. The IPPF, with its historic links with eugenicists such as Huxley, Stopes, Sangster and Galton, should never be used as an instrument for utilising British funds.
In 1995, reports from Feng Jia Zhuang and Long Tian Gou—two Catholic areas of China—reveal a combination of religious repression and political coercion. The slogan promoted by the state governments in those two regions is:
It is better to have more graves than one more child.
The local authorities repeatedly raid people's homes, confiscate families' property, round up the people and beat those who escape into nearby fields. Forced abortions have been performed on women in their last weeks of pregnancy, and women have been forcibly sterilised against their will. Monstrous fines—bigger than an annual income—are imposed on couples who do not comply. One villager had his legs so badly broken that he nearly died and, while concerned relatives inquired about him, they were arrested, abused and forced to pay a huge fine. Another villager unsuccessfully tried to sell his two children in an effort to have his wife freed from gaol.
Far from condemning such practices, the executive director of the UNFPA, Nafis Sadik, said:
China has every reason to feel proud and pleased with its remarkable achievements in its family planning policy and control of its population growth over the past ten years. Now China could offer its experiences and special experts to other countries.
When I put that quotation to Baroness Chalker, she said that she did not believe that Sadik had ever said it. I pointed out that the quotation was taken from briefing material that had been provided by her Department.
In a report entitled "Women in China: Imprisoned and abused for dissent", Amnesty International, the views of which would be different from mine on the broad sweep of pro-life questions, said:
Amnesty International takes no position on the official birth control policy in China, but it is concerned about the human rights violations which result from it, many of which affect women in particular. It is concerned at reports that forced abortion and sterilisation have been carried out by or at the instigation of people acting in an official capacity, such as family planning officials, against women who are detained, restricted or forcibly taken from their homes to have the operations. Amnesty International considers that in these circumstances such actions amount to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of detainees or restricted persons by Government officials.
The amendments give us a rare chance to focus on this major human rights question, which political correctness usually ensures does not dare speak its name. Ours is an advanced nation, but in the domestic and international arena we frequently promote policies that are uncivilised and inhumane. On the ground of choice, we sanction the daily killing of 600 unborn children in this country, we permit destructive experiments on human embryos and, on 1 August, we will cull thousands of human embryos, frozen and held in suspended animation having lost their


parents. An unborn child may be killed in Britain up to and even during birth because it is disabled, and the terminally ill or chronically infirm are killed by court order. Women in China are abused and their children are killed and we foot the bill. Advanced we may be, but civilised hardly.
This evening, we have the chance to step back from the culture of death and assert civilised values. The first Division will be on torture in general. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will then vote for the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Congleton, which commands all-party support and should be incorporated in the Bill.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I promise to be brief in the hope that, among other things, that will please the Chief Whip.
I support the amendment. I am only sorry that it does not incorporate the so-called ritual of female genital mutilation, which vile practice is inflicted on many millions of women each year. I recently asked the Home Office and the Foreign Office what succour they give those countries whose Governments allow such rituals to continue. Would the Minister treat with sympathy an application for asylum by a woman fleeing one of those countries to escape that so-called ritual?
In New York recently, a young woman from Togo sought asylum in the United States on those grounds. She was promptly handcuffed and fettered and put in a New York prison for women. Fortunately, she has been rescued from incarceration and a New York family is looking after her. She was encouraged to flee by her elder sisters, who had suffered that torture. I have heard of other women who have undergone that dreadful practice urging their younger sisters to flee to the west to avoid the torture.

Miss Emma Nicholson: The hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) raised that case. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to learn that the lady concerned has received settlement. I hope that, as the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) suggest, entry clearance officers in our embassies and high commissions will consider such cases favourably.

Dr. Godman: In fairness to the Government, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), told me that his Department was working to provide aid to health education programmes in countries whose Governments are making genuine attempts to reduce, if not eliminate, the practice. I know that I will get an answer from the Minister if I can get her attention—she is blethering away to the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns). This is an important issue. If a woman seeks asylum in Britain on such grounds, she should be given it.

Sir Patrick Cormack: I signed amendment (b) because it seemed to me that I was merely signing a statement of the obvious:
'torture' includes the inflicting of involuntary abortion or involuntary sterilisation, and the phrase 'has been tortured' shall be construed accordingly.

For the life of me, I cannot understand how anyone can dissent from such a simple statement of the obvious. I cannot believe that my hon. Friend the Minister will do anything other than accept it. It would not particularly strengthen the Bill, and it certainly cannot weaken it. It would make it clear beyond any doubt that we believe that such barbarous practices are among the worst methods of inflicting torture on a human being.

Miss Widdecombe: I ask the House to resist amendments (d), (e), (f) and (b) and to accept Lords amendments Nos. 1 and 35. Lords amendment No. 1 does three things. It rewrites clause 1 to make it easier to understand; it puts torture on the face of the Bill; and it makes the initial designation order affirmative rather than negative. I take the mood of the House to be that there is no serious dispute with those proposals and I shall therefore concentrate on replying to the other amendments rather than on expanding on their lordships' amendments.
Under amendments (d) and (e), asylum applicants would be excluded from the accelerated appeal procedure if their country of origin is reported by certain UN bodies to have an extensive practice of torture. Let me say right away that I entirely share the House's concern about giving adequate protection to victims of torture. I state categorically that if anyone were to establish that he or she were in danger of torture, that person would have clear grounds for asylum. That has always been the Government's position and that remains our position. The question is whether this additional exemption is helpful. I believe that it is not because the Bill tries to establish the general principle that the individual must make a claim based on that individual's circumstances.
I have already said in response to the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) that there is no intention whatever in the accelerated procedure of failing to consider applications on their merits. There is no intention whatever of depriving people of the opportunity to establish a claim based on torture or on any other valid ground for asylum. The amendments would lead to separate exemption for applicants who, by definition, were unable to establish a claim of torture, notwithstanding their country's poor record. I cannot discern a convincing argument for the proposition that an asylum seeker who has not himself been tortured and whose claim, on individual consideration, is found to be manifestly unfounded or not to qualify for certification under one of the other headings in clause 1, should nevertheless be exempted from having his appeal accelerated.
Secondly, the argument in favour of the Lords amendment—that asylum seekers who have experienced torture in the past may be especially vulnerable and, in particular, may be suffering from traumatic effects that make it desirable to allow them more time to prepare their appeal—cannot be advanced in support of these amendments, which would exempt asylum seekers from having their appeal accelerated if they have not been tortured. Amendments (d) and (e) would mean that for certain nationalities, asylum appeals could not be accelerated even if it became apparent after proper individual consideration that they were manifestly unfounded. The amendments would significantly and unjustifiably restrict the availability of the accelerated appeal procedure. They would greatly reduce the impact


of clause I as a deterrent against abuse of appeals and as a means of enabling such appeals to be processed more quickly.

Mr. Doug Henderson: Does the Minister accept that she is mistaken in her reading of our amendment? Amendment (e) relates to cases where applicants claim political asylum because of torture. Its last line refers to the
extensive practice of torture of the type and in the circumstances which are referred to in the claim.
It therefore relates only to cases where the applicant says that he is afraid of torture in that specific circumstance or area.

Miss Widdecombe: No. If the hon. Gentleman had been listening, he would know that I was not talking about areas or particular religious groups. I said that simply because a country had an established record of torture, an individual whose claim was manifestly unfounded, and who could be shown neither to have been tortured nor reasonably to fear torture, would nevertheless under the amendments be exempt.

Mr. Henderson: rose—

Miss Widdecombe: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I want turn to the amendment that occupied most of the debate. It was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) and ably supported by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), who, in respect of such issues, I often refer to as my hon. Friend. On this occasion, I deeply regret that I cannot accept the amendment as it stands. There are several reasons for that.
First, there is the use of term "involuntary" rather than "forcible". "Involuntary" can cover a wide range of circumstances from, at one end of the spectrum, forcible abortion or sterilisation, which in all circumstances are repugnant and cruel and would indeed constitute torture, to cases where a woman undergoes an abortion because of pressure from her partner or family but not necessarily from the state. That, I am afraid, is the definition of "involuntary". I am sorry to have to tell the hon. Member for Mossley Hill that that is too wide. He will know that if that word were used in the Bill, it would have to be interpreted in that fashion. For those reasons, I cannot accept it.

Mr. Alton: Surely the hon. Lady accepts that, whether the term used is "forcible" or "involuntary", it amounts to the same act of cruelty both to the woman and to her unborn child. Whether the pressure comes from the state, partner or individual, such action has not been from personal choice. It amounts to the same thing.

Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman is not thinking clearly.

Mr. Madden: The remedy for the defect to which the Minister pointed lies in her hands. Will she table an amendment in another place that uses the term "forcible"? That would meet her objections and the concerns of hon. Members. It would immediately answer the fears of many women, not least those from China.

Miss Widdecombe: Had that been the only objection, I might well have considered that course of action, but as I said in my introductory remarks, there are several reasons why I cannot accept the amendment. However, I stress that both personally and as a Minister I utterly accept that forcible abortion, sterilisation, genital mutilation and allied practices would almost always constitute torture. In fact, they would probably always constitute torture. There is no doubt in my mind that anyone making a case to us on those grounds would have an extremely good case for asylum.
So, in rejecting the amendment, I am not rejecting the argument. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), the hon. Member for Mossley Hill and the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) that it would be our intention to move in the spirit of the amendment, even if we cannot accept it.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: My hon. Friend will understand that there are deep concerns on this issue on both sides of the House. She will also understand that guarantees have been given at the Dispatch Box on previous occasions which have not in practice been fulfilled later on and that one has become slightly cynical about what Governments of both parties do later on. Can she help us in any way whatever other than by giving her personal assurance as Minister now? Can she go further and do what the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) suggested? If not, will she receive an all-party delegation to discuss how to take the issue further? It will not go away and the Government will have to act. Would it not be better to act now when she is in a position to do something in a very simple way?

Miss Widdecombe: I share entirely my hon. Friend's concerns and, indeed, those expressed by Opposition Members about this issue. If there is any way forward which can give greater assurances than those which I have pledged at the Dispatch Box tonight, and if there is any way in which we can sensibly and coherently take forward the issues that she has raised, I shall be delighted to consider it, if not under the aegis of the Bill, in some other way.
I will always accept delegations, whether all-party or anything else, that want to talk to me on matters of this level of importance.

Sir Patrick Cormack: I accept that there is something in my hon. Friend's point about the difference between "forcible" and "involuntary". Is she prepared to issue not guidance but clear instructions to those who adjudicate on these matters that anyone who has suffered in that way should be construed to be a victim of torture?

Miss Widdecombe: I have no difficulty whatever in issuing guidance. I am afraid that it would have to be guidance, but it would be clear guidance on that subject. Despite my hon. Friend's fears and anxieties, it is not our practice to turn away people in that circumstance. We certainly have no intention of making it our practice. I have already said to my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton that if I can in some way give force to my assurances, I shall certainly do so.

Mr. Alton: Although no one doubts the Minister's personal position in this regard, does she not understand that this is the only legislative opportunity open to the


House and that at the fag end of the proceedings on the Bill it would be better to accept the amendment tonight and allow it to be changed in the other place when it goes back before we rise for the summer than to reject it this evening? Many of us want to press the amendment to a vote in any circumstances. In accepting the amendment, the Minister would at least allow words to be changed, if that is what needs to be done, in the other place.
Will the Minister answer the point that I made earlier about what happens if a woman presents herself to the embassy in Beijing and says that under the one-child policy she is about to be forced to have an abortion? Would our officials there grant her political asylum?

Miss Widdecombe: Before I answer those points, I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh). I shall try to answer both interventions together.

Mr. Edward Leigh: Do I understand my hon. Friend correctly? Is she saying that there is general agreement that torture obviously includes enforced abortion by the state? Will she consult her colleagues and parliamentary draftsmen to find out whether there is any way in which, if not here tonight but in another place, we can ensure that the wish of the House is given effect when the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament?

Miss Widdecombe: My hon. Friend was correct in the first half of his question. We would regard enforced abortion as torture, as we would enforced mutilation or sterilisation. I can undertake to put the guidance in instructions to caseworkers and to make that guidance available to the House, if that helps my hon. Friend.

Miss Emma Nicholson: Will the Minister give way?

Dr. Godman: Will the Minister give way?

Miss Widdecombe: I am anxious to answer all the points, but I am continually interrupted when answering one point by someone wanting to make another. For the sake of good order, I should like to answer the points that have been made as fully as I can and then give way, if hon. Members will contain their impatience.
In response to the second point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle, if the only objection were the use of the word "involuntary", there might have been a way forward. However, there are other objections, which I shall come to.
In response to the hon. Member for Mossley Hill, if someone presents at an embassy, we will take into account two things. The first is the merits of the case. I think that I have said already that we would consider such reasons to make a meritorious case. However, where people present at embassies rather than on arrival in Britain, we would also consider ties with the United Kingdom and reasons for preferring it to other countries. I cannot give a blanket welcome to absolutely everyone who presents at an embassy with that particular case, but I can say that the merits of that case will have established themselves.

As the hon. Gentleman well knows, when people present at embassies abroad, there are other issues to be considered. I could not possibly say that every Chinese woman who presented herself at an embassy abroad would automatically be accepted. The hon. Gentleman can work that one out for himself.
I have tried throughout the debate to assure the House that anyone who comes here and makes a case on the ground of enforced abortion would be considered to have a claim for political asylum. I give way, because I promised and I have not forgotten, to the hon. Members for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) and for Torridge and West Devon (Miss Nicholson).

Dr. Godman: Does the hon. Lady's ministerial sympathy extend to women seeking to avoid genital mutilation? Does she regard that form of mutilation as torture?

Miss Widdecombe: Yes.

Miss Emma Nicholson: Will the Minister please explain to the House how her authority will extend over the Foreign Office; how her authority will be so great that it will ring down the decades more strongly than the words that we seek to include in the Bill? It is extremely difficult for all Opposition Members and, I suspect, for most Conservative Members, to take her personal assurance in the way in which she wishes us to take it. It just cannot be true.

Miss Widdecombe: I am sorry that the hon. Lady will not accept my assurances. I have already said that the matter will go into guidance and that I will make that guidance available.
I give way to the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard). This will have to be the last intervention before I move on.

Mr. Neil Gerrard: The Minister has made an important point in suggesting that if someone went to an embassy and asked to be granted asylum, the embassy would consider the merits of the case and ties with the United Kingdom. That is a much wider point than the question about someone who turns up at the embassy in Beijing suggesting that she may be about to have an enforced abortion. This could affect many people in many countries. Precisely how many people have so far been able to turn up at an embassy and make that case? I have come across cases of people who have ties with the United Kingdom who go to an embassy and ask for a visa on the ground that they wish to ask for asylum. There is never the slightest chance of their being granted admission.

Miss Widdecombe: Neither ties to the United Kingdom on their own nor merits on their own would be sufficient when applicants present from abroad, but I cannot be more specific. I have indulged in a clear question-and-answer session on that point and I wish to move on. I reiterate my sympathy with those who have tabled the amendment, but we cannot accept it.
Furthermore, we have another objection, because we cannot sensibly seek to legislate for each of the different ways in which people may be mistreated or persecuted. There is no logical end to that path and that approach


would lead to unwieldy and unmanageable statutes. Special cases make, as we all know, bad legislation and that is why we believe that the right approach is to continue to use the general principles set out in the 1952 United Nations convention. I have assured the House how we would treat applications based on forcible abortion, forcible sterilisation and forcible mutilation and I therefore urge the House to accept Lords amendments Nos. 1 and 35.

Amendment (d) to the Lords amendment negatived.

Amendment proposed to the Lords amendment: (e), in line 46, at end insert
`; or
(b) if the person making it claims to fear persecution in a country of territory where the United Nations Committee against Torture or the United Nations Special Rapporteur on torture has published documentary evidence showing an extensive practice of torture of the type and in the circumstances which are referred to in the claim.'.—[Mr. Straw.]

Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 259, Noes 300.

Division No. 197]
[5.51 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)


Adams, Mrs Irene
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Ainger, Nick
Clelland, David


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Allen, Graham
Coffey, Ann


Alton, David
Cohen, Harry


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Armstrong, Hilary
Corbett, Robin


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Corbyn, Jeremy


Ashton, Joe
Corston, Jean


Austin-Walker, John
Cousins, Jim


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Cox, Tom


Barnes, Harry
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Battle, John
Cunningham, Roseanna


Bayley, Hugh
Dafis, Cynog


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Dalyell, Tam


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Darling, Alistair


Bell, Stuart
Davidson, Ian


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)


Bennett, Andrew F
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Benton, Joe
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Bermingham, Gerald
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)


Berry, Roger
Denham, John


Betts, Clive
Dewar, Donald


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Dixon, Don


Blunkett, David
Dobson, Frank


Boateng, Paul
Donohoe, Brian H


Bradley, Keith
Dowd, Jim


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Eagle, Ms Angela


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Eastham, Ken


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Etherington, Bill


Byers, Stephen
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Caborn, Richard
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Callaghan, Jim
Fatchett, Derek


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Faulds, Andrew


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Fisher, Mark


Campbell-Savours, D N
Flynn, Paul


Cann, Jamie
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Chidgey, David
Foster, Don (Bath)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Foulkes, George


Church, Judith
Fyfe, Maria


Clapnam, Michael
Galbraith, Sam





Galloway, George
McMaster, Gordon


Gapes, Mike
McNamara, Kevin


Garrett, John
MacShane, Denis


George, Bruce
McWilliam, John


Gerrard, Neil
Madden, Max


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Maddock, Diana


Godman, Dr Norman A
Mahon, Alice


Godsiff, Roger
Mandelson, Peter


Golding, Mrs Llin
Marek, Dr John


Gordon, Mildred
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Graham, Thomas
Martin, Michael J (Springburn)


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Martlew, Eric


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Maxton, John


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Meacher, Michael


Grocott, Bruce
Meale, Alan


Gunnell, John
Michael, Alun


Hain, Peter
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Hall, Mike
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Hanson, David
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Hardy, Peter
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Harman, Ms Harriet
Morgan, Rhodri


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Morris Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)


Henderson, Doug
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Heppell, John
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Mowlam, Marjorie


Hinchliffe, David
Mudie, George


Hoey, Kate
Murphy, Paul


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Home Robertson, John
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Hood, Jimmy
O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)


Hoon, Geoffrey
Olner, Bill


Howarth, George (Knowsley North)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)
Parry, Robert


Hoyle, Doug
Pearson, Ian


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Pickthall, Colin


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Pike, Peter L


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Pope, Greg


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Powell, Sir Ray (Ogmore)


Hutton, John
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)


lllsley, Eric
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Ingram, Adam
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Primarolo, Dawn


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Purchase, Ken


Jamieson, David
Quin, Ms Joyce


Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)
Radice, Giles


Johnston, Sir Russell
Raynsford, Nick


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Reid, Dr John


Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Rendel, David


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Rogers, Allan


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Rooker, Jeff


Jowell, Tessa
Rooney, Terry


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Keen, Alan
Rowlands, Ted


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Sedgemore, Brian


Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)
Sheerman, Barry


Khabra, Piara S
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


kilfoyte, Peter
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


kirkwood, Archy
Short, Clare


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Simpson, Alan


Lewis, Terry
Skinner, Dennis


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Livingstone, Ken
Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Llwyd, Elfyn
Soley, Clive


Loyden, Eddie
Spearing, Nigel


Lynne, Ms Liz
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


McAllion, John
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


McAvoy, Thomas
Steinberg, Gerry


McCartney, Ian
Stevenson, George


Macdonald, Calum
Straw, Jack


McFall, John
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


McKelvey, William
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Tipping, Paddy


McLeish, Henry
Trickett, Jon






Turner, Dennis
Wilson, Brian


Vaz, Keith
Winnick, David


Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold
Wise, Audrey


Walley, Joan
Wray, Jimmy


Wareing, Robert N
Wright, Dr Tony


Watson, Mike
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Wicks, Malcolm



Wigley, Dafydd
Tellers for the Ayes:


Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)
Mr. John Cummings and Mr. Eric Clarke.


Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Day, Stephen


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Amess, David
Devlin, Tim


Arbuthnot, James
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Dover, Den


Ashby, David
Duncan, Alan


Aspinwall, Jack
Duncan Smith, Iain


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Dunn, Bob


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Durant, Sir Anthony


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Eggar, Rt Hon Tim


Baldry, Tony
Elletson, Harold


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Bates, Michael
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Batiste, Spencer
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Bellingham, Henry
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Bendall, Vivian
Evennett, David


Beresford, Sir Paul
Faber, David


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fabricant, Michael


Body, Sir Richard
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Booth, Hartley
Fishbum, Dudley


Boswell, Tim
Forman, Nigel


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Forth, Eric


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Bowis, John
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
French, Douglas


Brandreth, Gyles
Fry, Sir Peter


Brazier, Julian
Gale, Roger


Bright, Sir Graham
Gallie, Phil


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gardiner, Sir George


Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Garnier, Edward


Browning, Mrs Angela
Gill, Christopher


Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)
Gillan, Cheryl


Budgen, Nicholas
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Burns, Simon
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Burt, Alistair
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Butcher, John
Gorst, Sir John


Butler, Peter
Grant Sir A (SW Cambs)


Butterfill, John
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Carrington, Matthew
Grylls, Sir Michael


Carttiss, Michael
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Cash, William
Hague, Rt Hon William


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Clappison, James
Hampson, Dr Keith


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Hannam, Sir John


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hargreaves, Andrew


Coe, Sebastian
Haselhurst, Sir Alan


Colvin, Michael
Hawkins, Nick


Congdon, David
Hawksley, Warren


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hayes, Jerry


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Heald, Oliver


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Couchman, James
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Cran, James
Hendry, Charles


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Hicks, Sir Robert





Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Paice, James


Hill, Sr James (Southampton Test)
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Patten, Rt Hon John


Horam, John
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Pawsey, James


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Pickles, Eric


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Potter, David (Waveney)


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensboume)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hunter, Andrew
Rathbone, Tim


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Jack, Michael
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Richards, Rod


Jenkin, Bernard
Riddck, Graham


Jessel, Toby
Robathan, Andrew


Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Knapman, Roger
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Sackville, Tom


Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sr Timothy


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'sf'n)
Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Knox, Sir David
Shaw, David (Dover)


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Shepherd, Sr Colin (Hereford)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Sims, Sir Roger


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Legg, Barry
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Leigh, Edward
Smyth, The Reverend Martin


Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Soames, Nicholas


Lidington, David
Speed, Sir Keith


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lord, Michael
Spicer, Sr Michael (S Worcs)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Spink, Dr Robert


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Spring, Richard


MacKay, Andrew
Sproat, Iain


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Steen, Anthony


Madel, Sir David
Stephen, Michael


Maitland, Lady Olga
Stern, Michael


Major, Rt Hon John
Stewart, Allan


Malone, Gerald
Streeter, Gary


Mans, Keith
Sumberg, David


Marland, Paul
Sweeney, Walter


Marlow, Tony
Sykes, John


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Merchant, Piers
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mills, Iain
Thomason, Roy


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Moate, Sir Roger
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Tracey, Richard


Moss, Malcolm
Tredinnick, David


Nelson, Anthony
Trend, Michael


Neubert, Sir Michael
Trotter, Neville


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Twinn, Dr Ian


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Norris, Steve
Viggers, Peter


Oppenheim, Phillip
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Ottaway, Richard
Walden, George


Page, Richard
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)






Waller, Gary
Willetts, David


Ward, John
Wilshire, David


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Waterson, Nigel
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)


Watts, John
Wolfson, Mark


Wells, Bowen
Wood, Timothy


Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John
Yeo, Tim


Whitney, Ray
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Whittingdale, John



Widdecombe, Ann
Tellers for the Noes:


Wiggin, Sir Jerry
Mr. Derek Conway and Dr. Liam Fox.


Wilkinson, John

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed to the Lords amendment: (b), in line 67, at end add —

'"torture" includes the inflicting of involuntary abortion or involuntary sterilisation, and the phrase "has been tortured" shall be construed accordingly.'.— [Mr. Alton.]

Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 266, Noes 290.

Division No. 198]
 [6.06 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Adams, Mrs Irene
Clelland, David


Ainger, Nick
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Coffey, Ann


Allen, Graham
Cohen, Harry


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Armstrong, Hilary
Corbett, Robin


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Corbyn, Jeremy


Ashton, Joe
Corston, Jean


Austin-Walker, John
Cousins, Jim


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Cox, Tom


Barnes, Harry
Cummings, John


Battle, John
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Bayley, Hugh
Cunningham, Roseanna


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Dafis, Cynog


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Dalyell, Tam


Bell, Stuart
Darling, Alistair


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Davidson, Ian


Bennett, Andrew F
Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)


Benton, Joe
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Bermingham, Gerald
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Berry, Roger
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)


Betts, Clive
Denham, John


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Dewar, Donald


Blunkett, David
Dixon, Don


Boateng, Paul
Dobson, Frank


Bradley, Keith
Donohoe, Brian H


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dowd, Jim


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Eagle, Ms Angela


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Eastham, Ken


Byers, Stephen
Etherington, Bill


Caborn, Richard
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Callaghan, Jim
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Fatchett, Derek


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Faulds, Andrew


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Campbell-Savours, D N
Fisher, Mark


Cann, Jamie
Flynn, Paul


Chidgey, David
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Chisholm, Malcolm
Foster, Don (Bath)


Church, Judith
Foulkes, George


Clapham, Michael
Fraser, John


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Fyfe, Maria


Clarke, Eric (Midbthian)
Galbratth, Sam





Galloway, George
McNamara, Kevin


Gapes, Mike
MacShane, Denis


Garrett, John
McWilliam, John


George, Bruce
Madden, Max


Gerrard, Neil
Maddock, Diana


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Maginnis, Ken


Godman, Dr Norman A
Mahon, Alice


Godsiff, Roger
Mandelson, Peter


Golding, Mrs Llin
Marek, Dr John


Gordon, Mildred
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Graham, Thomas
Martin, Michael J (Springbum)


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Martlew, Eric


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Maxton, John


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Meacher, Michael


Grocott, Bruce
Meale, Alan


Gunnell, John
Michael, Alun


Hain, Peter
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Hall, Mike
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Hanson, David
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Hardy, Peter
Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James


Harman, Ms Harriet
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Morgan, Rhodri


Henderson, Doug
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)


Heppell, John
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Hinchlrtfe, David
Mowlam, Marjorie


Hoey, Kate
Mudie, George


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Murphy, Paul


Home Robertson, John
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hood, Jimmy
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Hoon, Geoffrey
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Howarth, George (Knowsley North)
Olner, Bill


Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)
O'Neill, Martin


Hoyie, Doug
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Parry, Robert


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Pearson, Ian


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Pickthall, Colin


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Pike, Peter L


Hutton, John
Pope, Greg


lllsley, Eric
Powell, Sir Ray (Ogmore)


Ingram, Adam
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jackson, Helen (Shefld, H)
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Jamieson, David
Primarob, Dawn


Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)
Purchase, Ken


Johnston, Sir Russell
Quin, Ms Joyce


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Radtoe, Giles


Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Raynsford, Nick


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Reid, Dr John


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Rendel, David


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Jowell, Tessa
Rogers, Allan


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Rooker, Jeff


Keen, Alan
Rooney, Terry


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Khabra, Piara S
Rowlands, Ted


Kilfoyte, Peter
Sedgemore, Brian


Kirkwood, Archy
Sheerman, Barry


Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Lewis, Terry
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Short, Clare


Livingstone, Ken
Simpson, Alan


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Skinner, Dennis


Llwyd, Elfyn
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Loyden, Eddie
Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & Fsbury)


McAllion, John
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McAvoy, Thomas
Smyth, The Reverend Martin


McCartney, Ian
Soley, Clive


MacdonakJ, Calum
Spearing, Nigel


McFall, John
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


McKelvey, William
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Mackinlay, Andrew
Steinberg, Gerry


McLeish, Henry
Stevenson, George


McMaster, Gordon
Straw, Jack






Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Wigley, Dafydd


Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Tipping, Paddy
Wilson, Brian


Trickett, Jon
Winnick, David


Turner, Dennis
Wise, Audrey


Tyler, Paul
Wray, Jimmy


Vaz, Keith
Wright, Dr Tony


Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Walley, Joan



Wareing, Robert N
Tellers for the Ayes:


Watson, Mike
Ms Liz Lynne and Mr. David Alton. 


Wicks, Malcolm





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Day, Stephen


Amess, David
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Arbuthnot, James
Devlin, Tim


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Ashby, David
Dover, Den


Aspinwall, Jack
Duncan, Alan


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Duncan Smith, Iain


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Dunn, Bob


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Durant, Sir Anthony


Baldry, Tony
Dykes, Hugh


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Eggar, Rt Hon Tim


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Elletson, Harold


Bates, Michael
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Batiste, Spencer
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Bellingham, Henry
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Beresfond, Sir Paul
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Body, Sir Richard
Evennett, David


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Faber, David


Booth, Hartley
Fabricant, Michael


Boswell, Tim
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Fishburn, Dudley


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Forman, Nigel


Bowis, John
Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Forth, Eric


Brandreth, Gyles
Fox, Fit Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Brazier, Julian
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Bright, Sir Graham
French, Douglas


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Fry, Sir Peter


Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Gale, Roger


Browning, Mrs Angela
Gallie, Phil


Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)
Gardiner, Sir George


Budgen, Nicholas
Garnier, Edward


Burns, Simon
Gill, Christopher


Burt, Alistair
Gillan, Cheryl


Butcher, John
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Butler, Peter
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Chartes


Butterfill, John
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Gorst, Sir John


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Grant Sir A (SW Cambs)


Carrington, Matthew
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Cash, William
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Grylls, Sir Michael


Clappison, James
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Hague, Rt Hon William


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hamilton, Fit Hon Sir Archibald


Coe, Sebastian
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Colvin, Michael
Hampson, Dr Keith


Congdon, David
Hannam, Sir John


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hargreaves, Andrew


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Haselhurst, Sir Alan


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hawkins, Nick


Couchman, James
Hawksley, Warren


Cran, James
Hayes, Jerry


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Heald, Oliver





Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Oppenheim, Phillip


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Ottaway, Richard


Hendry, Charles
Page, Richard


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Paice, James


Hicks, Sir Robert
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Pawsey, James


Horam, John
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Pickles, Eric


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hunt Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Rathbone, Tim


Hunt Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Hunter, Andrew
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Richards, Rod


Jack, Michael
Riddick, Graham


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Robathan, Andrew


Jenkin, Bernard
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Jessel, Toby
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


King, Rt Hon Tom
Sackville, Tom


Kirkhope, Timothy
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Knapman, Roger
Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Knight Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knight Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Knight Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)


Knox, Sir David
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Kynoch, George
Sims, Sir Roger


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Soames, Nicholas


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Speed, Sir Keith


Legg, Barry
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lidington, David
Spfcer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Spink, Dr Robert


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Spring, Richard


Lord, Michael
Sproat Iain


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


MacKay, Andrew
Steen, Anthony


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Stephen, Michael


McLoughlin, Patrick
Stern, Michael


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Stewart, Allan


Madel, Sir David
Streeter, Gary


Maitland, Lady Olga
Sweeney, Walter


Matone, Gerald
Sykes, John


Mans, Keith
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Marland, Paul
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Marlow, Tony
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Thomason, Roy


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Merchant Piers
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Mills, Iain
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Tracey, Richard


Moate, Sir Roger
Tredinnick, David


Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector
Trend, Michael


Moss, Malcolm
Trotter, Neville


Needham, Rt Hon Richard
Twinn, Dr Ian


Nelson, Anthony
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Neubert, Sir Michael
Viggers, Peter


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Nicholls, Patrick
Walden, George


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Norris, Steve
Waller, Gary






Wardle, Charles
Willetts, David


Waterson, Nigel
Wilshire, David


Watts, John
Wolfson, Mark


Wells, Bowen
Wood, Timothy


Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John
Yeo, Tim


Whitney, Ray
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Whittingdale, John



Widdecombe, Ann
Tellers for the Noes:


Wiggin, Sir Jerry
Mr. Derek Conway and Dr. Liam Fox. 


Wilkinson, John

Question accordingly negatived.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): We move to Lords amendment No. 2, with which is grouped Lords amendments Nos. 3 and 6.

Miss Widdecombe: I beg to move formally, That this House doth agree with the Lords in amendments Nos. 2 and 3, and I beg to move formally, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in amendment No. 6; and I move amendment (a) in lieu.

Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 3 agreed to.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I understand that we have approved Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 3. May I clarify the procedure? My hon. Friend the Minister has moved formally that we disagree with Lords amendment No. 6, but will we still have an opportunity to debate it?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I think that the answer is no.

Mr. Bottomley: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. If Lords amendment No. 6 is the one that grants asylum seekers three days in which to apply—

Hon. Members: No, it is not.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman may be interested in a later amendment.

Clause 2

REMOVAL ETC. OF ASYLUM CLAIMANTS TO SAFE THIRD COUNTRIES

Lords amendment: No. 4, in page 3, line 17, at end insert ("by statutory instrument").

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Timothy Kirkhope): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 5.

Mr. Kirkhope: Lords amendments Nos. 4 and 5 provide that the first order designating countries outside the European Union to which applicants can be removed without a suspensive right of appeal will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, and subsequent orders will be subject to the negative resolution procedure. The

Government gave careful consideration to the report of the Select Committee on the scrutiny of delegated powers, and accepted its recommendation in full.
I assure the House that the initial order that we shall lay before it in draft will be as comprehensive as possible. The countries that we have identified as possible candidates for designation under this clause are the United States, Canada, Switzerland and Norway. We envisage that the order-making power will be used sparingly.

Mr. Henderson: The House will welcome the Government's conversion on this issue, which relates to an applicant's ability to appeal against the rejection of his application for political asylum after coming through a third country. The Government's original position was that, regardless of what the country was, what language was spoken there and the state of its legal system, the applicant must return to it to make an appeal. In Committee, it was emphasised to the Government that that was an impractical proposition. The Government have accepted that, and their Ministers in another place have tabled the amendments, which I am sure that the House will welcome.
I must enter one word of caution. I hope that the Government will not use the amendments to extend the list way beyond the European Union in a way that would reinstate their original proposition. Perhaps the Minister could give me an assurance on that.

Mr. Kirkhope: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not listening. My final remark was that we intended to use the power sparingly, and that is what we shall do. Moreover, as I said, the first list, which will be subject to affirmative resolution, will be as comprehensive as possible, thus allowing the House as much opportunity as possible to discuss it.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 5 agreed to.

Clause 3

APPEALS AGAINST CERTIFICATES UNDER SECTION 2

Lords amendment No. 6 disagreed to.

Amendment made in lieu of Lords amendment No. 6: (a), in page 3, line 33, leave out from 'under' to end of line 34 and insert—

'(i) Part II of the 1971 Act (appeals: general); or
(ii) section 8 of the 1993 Act (appeals to special adjudicator on Convention grounds),

as respects matters arising before his removal from the United Kingdom'.—[Miss Widdecombe.]

Lords amendments Nos. 7 and 8 agreed to.

Clause 8

RESTRICTIONS ON EMPLOYMENT

Lords amendment: No. 9, in page 6, line 2, leave out ("subsection (3)") and insert ("subsections (2A) and (3)")

Miss Widdecombe: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 11.

Miss Widdecombe: The amendments would add to the list of those in respect of whom an employer would not


be guilty of an offence under clause 8. The new category would be those employed as domestic workers where a police officer, doctor or solicitor had certified that the person had suffered substantial physical abuse or deprivation, or serious economic exploitation, as a result of what is described in Lords amendment No. 11 as "previous bonded employment".
The amendment creates an anomaly. While it would remove from the second employer liability for employing a person not permitted to undertake the work in question, it would not affect the position of the employee, who would still not have permission to work for the new employer. He or she would therefore be either in breach of immigration conditions or an overstayer. The amendments do not, therefore, achieve the intention behind them.
Let me put on record that I fully appreciate and, indeed, share, the genuine concerns that lie behind the amendments. The Government's rejection of them is in no sense a refusal to acknowledge that some employers treat their domestic workers in a thoroughly unacceptable manner, but amendments to the Bill's provisions on illegal working are not the right way in which to address those problems. We must not widen the scope for illegal working. At the same time, we cannot create a category of people who are allowed to change jobs at will. They would acquire a privileged status accorded to no other group of people who come to the United Kingdom to work. That is why we do all that we can to ensure at the pre-entry stage that only those who are willing to accompany their employers here under the domestic working concession are allowed to do so.
The arrangement is that the domestic worker, who must be at least 18 years old, must hold an entry clearance for that purpose on arrival here. When the entry clearance is applied for, the entry clearance officer will interview the domestic worker, with the employer excluded, and try to establish that the domestic worker is satisfied with the terms of employment. He will also ensure that the domestic worker receives and understands a leaflet explaining his or her rights in the UK, especially where to go for help or advice, should abuse of employment follow. The leaflet is available in English, Arabic, Tagalog, Hindi, Urdu, Punjabi, Bengali, Tamil, Thai and Spanish.
Additionally, the employer must give a written undertaking to provide adequate maintenance and accommodation, including a separate bedroom for the domestic worker. He must also set out in writing the main terms and conditions of the employment, a copy of which goes to the domestic worker, who is asked to confirm that he or she agrees to them.
6.30 pm
We already make considerable efforts to weed out at the entry clearance stage applications that are backed by unsatisfactory arrangements. We refuse about 600 applications a year because those criteria are not met. However, we are always ready to listen to suggestions on how to improve further the pre-entry arrangements. There is no question of employers already here being allowed to recruit domestic workers direct from overseas. Workers must have been employed for at least one year by the person whom they are accompanying and for at least two years if nothing more than a short visit is involved. That

is designed to ensure that there is a genuine, established employer-employee relationship, which both parties wish to continue.
Therefore, while the amendments are well intentioned—I share their intention—they would be defective in effect. They will not eliminate the risk of abuse by employees' original or subsequent employers. The way forward on what, I admit, is a difficult issue is to prevent abuse at the entry clearance stage, or to deal with it where it occurs here through the normal processes of law. In cases of financial or other hardship, as with all persons who are in distress overseas, domestic workers may seek the help of their embassies. That advice is included in the leaflet.

Mr. Henderson: I accept that there are some technical difficulties on the definitions in the amendments made in another place, particularly the definition of serious economic exploitation and, probably, the definition of physical abuse. I also accept that that possible loophole would create other difficulties, which might allow persons wrongly to classify themselves as domestic servants and to substantiate that some abuse has taken place.
I accept, therefore, that there are problems in the way in which the Lords amendments are written, but the Government are not on high ground in their response because they have not dealt with the problem of bonded domestic servants who enter this country as visitors as an extension on the visa of the person who is their master or mistress. Under our immigration regulations, those servants have no protection.
At a previous stage of our proceedings, it was argued that we should recognise that some important foreign guests to this country wish to bring with them servants who are attached to their employment, but that servants should also have rights under our immigration law, and that they should be recognised in a category as domestic servants. That was the intention behind Labour Members' amendments to the Immigration Act 1971, which were of course rejected by the House.
The Minister believes that she is able to dispose of this issue with her motion, but she is disposing of it only in procedural terms. The problem still exists and the Government must face up to the fact that young women who enter this country as bonded servants to employers are being physically and sometimes sexually abused and have no protection under our immigration law. Those poor women have little alternative but to grin and bear what is happening to them, lest they be deported from our country, sometimes to face severe difficulties in the country to which they are deported, the risk of which is the reason why they became bonded servants in the first place. I ask the Minister to show compassion and to address the issue in further stages of the Bill.

Mr. Alton: We have heard the Minister of State again advance the argument that their lordships' amendments are defective, but, if the principles behind them were accepted, there has been a chance to put them right since they were passed in the other place. That is why I question precisely where the Government are coming from on some of the issues. They have had the chance to put right defective amendments and they have failed to do so. If Lords amendment No. 9 were accepted in its present form, even though it be defective, the Government could put it right between now and when it goes back to the House of Lords in a couple of weeks.
In a letter to the Home Secretary supporting the amendment, Kalayaan, otherwise known as Justice for Overseas Domestic Workers, said:
If retained the amendment will provide fleeing domestic workers of whom we have interviewed over 1000 since 1992, to consider their position, and it will help to give them time to prepare litigation against their former abusing employers.
The letter goes on:
Instead of further entrapping her by placing secondary employers under the threat of prosecution, the Government should be seeking urgently to solve the scandal of what Anti-Slavery International has described as modern day slavery.
The amendment has a long history. Much to his credit, my noble Friend Lord Hylton, the Cross-Bench peer, has campaigned for many years on the issue. The background is that, in 1981, the Government allowed rich employers coming to the UK to bring their domestic workers, who, tied to one employer, risked deportation if they left that employ. That led to innumerable injustices and to hundreds of instances of exploitation.
Lord Hylton gave a particular example of a Nigerian who was
brought here direct by Nigerian employers in January 1991. She escaped from them in December 1995. During all that time she received no salary, was continually slapped and beaten by the employers and locked in their house."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 1 July 1996; Vol. 573, c. 1284–85.]
He gave many other examples. During that debate, he called for an interdepartmental committee. He has been campaigning for 15 years, highlighting cases such as that of Mrs. Swami and the Kuwaiti princesses, which Members will recall.
The Government will say that they deplore these practices—they have done so again today—yet they do not conduct spot checks to find out what is happening to people, once they have arrived in the UK and become domestic workers. The Government propose no new penalties. They retain a concession that allows 12,000 bonded workers into the country every year and shackles them to their employers. Those workers have no more rights than mediaeval serfs. In a country that remembers the Tolpuddle martyrs and the early battles over trade union and labour laws, and that argues to this day about the social chapter and its protection for workers, it is mildly incongruous that we should be settling for anything less than the protection that any other worker receives in this country, merely because the workers in this case are foreign.
I would rather the so-called concessions were abolished, than keep in place a concession that allows people to abuse, to exploit and to curtail freedom to seek alternative employment. Even by the Government's own misguided lights, this is a denial of free-market forces and instead permits a small group of people to live in shadowy homes, where upstairs-downstairs attitudes hold sway. The Government should urgently examine the Dutch and Canadian systems of protecting domestic workers. They should give Lord Hylton the interdepartmental committee that he has requested. They should have an amnesty for overstaying domestic staff, who inhabit an even darker zone of the unprotected nether regions. They should permit workers who wish to bring civil or criminal cases against employers to stay here and to work until their cases are over.
Even without accepting the amendment:, the Government could provide greatly improved protection against abuse and exploitation by noting on arrival the

address to which employers intend to take domestic workers and by carrying out spot checks to ensure that the terms of the contract of employment are observed. Perhaps on arrival workers could be given the telephone number of a 24-hour helpline that would offer advice or help. To date, the Government have promised nothing to replace Lord Hylton's amendment. We should not put up with that negativity and indifference. Before the House decides, I hope that we shall hear from Ministers about what they propose to do to protect this group of people.

Sir Patrick Cormack: I am a member of the executive committee of Anti-Slavery International. There is real concern on this issue. I accept that there may be imperfections in Lord Hylton's amendment and logic in the Minister's recommendation to reject it, but we must have some measure. If we cannot have an interdepartmental committee immediately, we should at least have the promise of interdepartmental talks and a promise about the drawing up of clear guidance notes for those who have to deal with people, most of whom are women, who are often subjected to appalling brutality.
As the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) said, Lord Hylton has campaigned on this issue for many years from the Cross Benches. This should be entirely a Cross-Bench issue and we should all be concerned about having in our country people who are working under the control of what amounts to an alien regime. We would not for a moment condone certain practices for our own workers. As I have said, there must be interdepartmental discussions on this matter, the possibility of a committee of the type for which Lord Hylton has been campaigning, and the drawing up of clear guidance for all those who deal with these people. In asking us to reject the amendment, the Minister should at least give us those assurances.

Ms Glenda Jackson: I agree with everything that has been said by Opposition Members and by the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack). As he said, there is cross-party agreement, except by the Government, on this issue and certainly on the case in my constituency that was brought to my attention. The Government are labouring under a delusion if they regard the people whom we are discussing as employees. Those inevitably rich families who bring bonded servants into the country do not regard them as employees or in many instances even as human. In a case that was brought to my attention, the person was an abused slave.
The Government's argument that the embassies of the nationals concerned offer some protection does not stand. Many employers of those bonded servants are families of great importance and wealth in their own countries and have close associations with embassy officials. In my experience, the embassies invariably take the side of the employer and not that of the bonded servant. If the Government will not listen to Opposition arguments, I hope that they will listen to those by Conservative Members.

Miss Widdecombe: I am afraid that I must maintain my resistance to the amendments. However, that does not mean that I underestimate the importance of their intentions. I have said that we are always interested in hearing about additional ways to improve our system so


as to give proper protection to people who are caught in this situation. I fully understand that some employees are subjected to physical and sometimes sexual and economic abuse. When that happens, our first duty is to give those people the protection of the law. I do not think that the problem will be solved by simply creating for them a unique situation which does not apply to anybody else coming into the country.
I assure my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) that I shall carefully consider his suggestions and those of other hon. Members. I pay tribute to Lord Hylton. He has been to see me and has always been persistent but reasonable on the issue. I assure the House that I am willing to explore further ways forward. The amendments are not the answer.

Ms Diane Abbott: Twice in this short debate, the Minister has said that she does not want to create a special situation for these people. We are arguing that they are already in a special situation because, unlike people in any other category of immigrant or asylum seeker, they are not acting under their free will. That is why we are calling for a different special situation.

Miss Widdecombe: If people have not come here voluntarily, are not satisfied with the terms and conditions of their employment and are likely to be exploited, those are clear signs that we have to provide even tighter and surer entry clearance procedures. I have said that I am willing to listen to suggestions on that rather than go down the suggested route.

Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Minister give way?

Miss Widdecombe: I shall do so for the last time.

Mr. Banks: The Minister has said that people who are abused, and she gave examples, should have the full protection of the law. What about the proposal that more should be done to inspect the conditions under which they are employed, if employed is an accurate description? After all, the Minister is more than happy to send in the forces to check on illegal immigrants who are working in factories and elsewhere. Why not go into some of those homes to find out what is going on? If that is not done, we cannot take her assurances.

Miss Widdecombe: If a complaint is received, proper investigations will be carried out. The answer must lie in good and tight clearance and inspection procedures on the genuineness of the employment.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Minister give way?

Miss Widdecombe: I have been generous about giving way, but I have said that I will not give way again.
I maintain my resistance to the amendments, but I assure my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire that I will carefully consider what he has said.

Lords amendment disagreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 10, in page 6, line 3, leave out from ("employs") to ("as") in line 11 and insert

("a person subject to immigration control ("the employee") who has attained the age of 16, the employer shall be guilty of an offence if—

(a) the employee has not been granted leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom; or
(b) the employee's leave is not valid and subsisting, or is subject to a condition precluding him from taking up the employment,
and (in either case) the employee does not satisfy such conditions")

Mr. Kirkhope: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 12 to 16.

Mr. Kirkhope: The amendment responds to concerns that were expressed during discussion of clause 8 in another place about the complexity of its wording. It also responds to unease about the use of the word "immigrant" in the Bill. The amendment does not in any way change the substance of the clause but, as amended, the clause will be easier for employers and others to understand. While we shall, of course, provide employers with guidance, the Government agree that it is desirable for the legislative provision itself to be as straightforward as possible.
As I have said, the amendment removes the word "immigrant" from the clause. The Government made it clear during debate in the House and in the other place that the term was simply a neutral one to refer to a person who was subject to immigration control and that it did not in any way affect anyone's immigration status. Nevertheless, we accepted that, however irrationally, the word "immigrant" is perceived by some as having a pejorative connotation and that its use could give rise to anxieties among minority communities. We also recognise that the word might be seen by the layman as referring to anyone who has come here from abroad to live rather than only to a person who is subject to immigration control under the Immigration Act 1971.
For those reasons, the Government tabled a series of amendments, including this one, to remove the word "immigrant" and replace it with the phrase
person subject to immigration control".
We are satisfied that the phrase simply reflects the scope of the Bill. It is a technical definition with no pejorative connotations at all.
Amendments Nos. 12 and 15 will make it clear that an employer will not have a defence if he knows that an employee does not have permission to work in the United Kingdom. I gave notice of our intention to consider whether it would be appropriate to table an amendment to that effect before the Bill left the House. That consideration led us to the conclusion that we could not allow an employer to rely on one of the specified documents to provide him with a statutory defence if he knew that an employee was not entitled to work in the United Kingdom. To do so would be to leave a loophole that could be exploited by racketeers and by unscrupulous employers.
If clause 8 is not to be amended in this way, it is likely that it will not be possible to prosecute successfully at least some of the employers known to employ illegal workers on a regular basis. There would, therefore, be a risk that the effectiveness of the new offence could be limited in the cases of some of the employers about whom we are particularly concerned.
I hasten to say that amendment No. 10 will not in any way increase the burden on legitimate employers. Employers will be additionally liable only if they have specific actual knowledge that renders a defence invalid. It would be for the prosecution to prove that the employer had such knowledge. I know that the Confederation of British Industry, among other organisations, has written to hon. Members to express its concerns. I hope that my remarks are of comfort to those organisations.
Those attempting to comply with the legislation in good faith will never have such knowledge, and so will be able to have complete confidence that they have established a satisfactory defence. We shall of course ensure that the guidance that we issue makes the position abundantly clear.
Lords amendment Nos. 13 and 14 simply make some minor but important adjustments to clause 8. Lords amendment No. 13 removes from subsection (3) the requirement that an employer must prove that the document he inspected to provide himself with a defence was produced to establish that the employment would not constitute an offence. On consideration, we took the view that that was not a necessary requirement. The important elements are that the document was produced and, when necessary, copied. Furthermore, while in many cases the document will have been produced simply because of the requirements of the clause, that will not necessarily be the case. A P45, for example, will continue to be produced principally for purposes related to income tax.
Lords amendment No. 14 is a minor drafting amendment that makes it clear that employers will be expected to prove only that a document that was produced to them "appeared" to be one of the specified documents. The previous 1 ext specified that the document
was of a description specified.
Theoretically, that would not cover a forged document. We made it clear in the consultation document that employers would be expected to satisfy themselves only that a document appeared to be one of those specified. The amendment ensures that there is no doubt about what is expected of employers on that point.
Lords amendment No. 16 introduces into clause 8 a definition of the term "employ". That definition makes it clear that "employment" means employment under a contract of service or apprenticeship. The intention is to make it clear that the employed, but not the self-employed. should come within the scope of clause 8.
As the House is aware, clause 8 will make it an offence to employ a person aged 16 or over who does not have permission to live and work in the United Kingdom. However, the term "employ" was not originally defined. That was consistent with the approach taken in the Immigration Act 1971 and in the immigration rules, where no attempt was made to define what is meant by "employment". However, if "employ" is not defined in clause 8, it will, finally, be for magistrates courts to decide the scope of that term for the purposes of clause 8.
Some respondents to our consultation document made the point that we should define in the Bill what is meant by the term "employ". Having considered the matter, we agreed that it would be helpful to have such a definition, as that would make it easier to give clear guidance to employers about the nature of their obligations. The term is of course defined in other legislation affecting employment.
The most common definition, and the one that it seemed most appropriate us for use in the context of this new offence, relates to employment under a
contract of service or of apprenticeship.
That is a well-established term, and there is a considerable body of case law that explores the circumstances in which such a contract would be taken to exist.
A person who is self-employed works under a contract for services and would, quite properly, not be covered by the terms of clause 8.

Mr. Henderson: I think that Lords amendment Nos. 13 and 14 constitute a minor improvement. Employers will welcome the fact that they will have a defence if they believed that documents that were presented were genuine, although subsequently they were shown not to be. However, there is generally no substantial improvement in clause 8 and in how it is affected by the other amendments. It is not only one of the most unacceptable parts of the Bill, it is one of the most unacceptable aspects of any legislation that Parliament has considered. Not only workers and the general public but employers will regard its provisions as racist and divisive because they separate people based on the colour of their faces and on the language that they speak.
Furthermore, as Ministers know, although employers' organisations have reluctantly conceded that some aspects of clause 8 are less unacceptable than they were, there is still overwhelming opposition to it. In short, clause 8 is bureaucratic, draconian, unpopular and unnecessary, and—as Ministers know—it will not work.

Mr. John Fraser: It is quite right that employers should have a defence if they have seen a national insurance number or a birth certificate. That would clear them, and they would know that no offence has been committed. However, with the introduction of Lords amendment No. 15—coupled with the fact that exemptions for employers are not in statute but only in regulations, which the Minister will make—there is a very good chance that the situation will turn out nothing like it has been portrayed to the House today.
For example, the Minister said that production of a national insurance number would provide clearance for an employer to employ someone, and that that would be quite in order. The Minister knows perfectly well that, if someone comes to the United Kingdom as a Commonwealth holidaymaker for two years he will be given a national insurance number, but that does not guarantee that he will be entitled to work after the two years have expired, although he will still have the number. Having a number also does not allow him to work full time all the time. In those circumstances, either the Minister will have to change the regulations, or the employer, as a result of Lords amendment No. 15, will be at risk of committing an offence.
Let us take another example. Quite often, students are given permission to work during vacations if they have a letter from their college to present to their local employment office. They will also be given a national insurance number. However, it is impossible to determine limitations on their ability to work simply from a national insurance number.
There are similar provisions for students' spouses who applied before the 1995 immigration rules came into force. Those spouses are allowed to work, and they receive national insurance numbers. Since the 1995 rules came into force, however, only spouses married to students with studentships of more than 12 months are given leave to work.
So there is a mishmash of circumstances in which people will be given national insurance numbers, and it does not automatically follow that employment is unrestricted because someone has a national insurance number. There are two possible consequences of that. The first risk is that perfectly innocent employers who have not colluded with an employee may be committing an offence. The second risk is that the Minister will spot the problem and then change the regulations.
The Minister stated in the consultation document that it will be sufficient if an employee produces a birth certificate. The Minister knows that, as a result of the British Nationality Act 1981—which came into force on 21 December 1983—birth in the United Kingdom does not automatically confer United Kingdom nationality. We have only two years to go before those born before 1 January 1984 will come on to the labour market with birth certificates, but not necessarily with United Kingdom citizenship or with an entitlement to work. I think that there could be—I do not say that there necessarily is—a hidden agenda.
Perfectly innocent employers are perplexed at the possibility that they may commit an offence when they learn—perhaps half way through someone's employment—that they have employed a Commonwealth holidaymaker, for example. It would be much better to have a clear, unambiguous exemption for employers.
If the Minister wants to amend the Bill, he should amend it so that it applies only to employers who collude in the commission of an offence, ensuring that the real rogues are caught and not those who have quite enough to do in getting on with their jobs and in employing people.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 11 disagreed to.

Lords amendment's Nos. 12 to 23 agreed to.

New clause

Lords amendment: No. 24, after clause 10, to insert the following new clause—Saving for social security regulations—

".—(1) Notwithstanding any enactment or rule of law, regulations may exclude from entitlement to any of the following benefits, namely—

(a) income support, housing benefit and council tax benefit under the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992;
(b) income support and housing benefit under the Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992; and

(c) jobseeker's allowance under the Jobseekers Act 1995 or the Jobseekers (Northern Ireland) Order 1995,

any person who has made a claim for asylum other than on his arrival in the United Kingdom or within three working days of that arrival.

(2) Regulations may provide that, where such a person as is mentioned in subsection (1) above is subsequently recorded by the Secretary of State as a refugee within the meaning of the Convention—

(a) that person may, within a prescribed period, claim the whole or any prescribed proportion of any income support, housing benefit or council tax benefit to which he would have been entitled had he been recorded as a refugee immediately after he made the claim for asylum; and
(b) where he makes such a claim as is mentioned in paragraph (a) above in respect of housing benefit or council tax benefit having resided in the areas of two or more local authorities in Great Britain, the claim shall be investigated and determined, and any benefit awarded shall be paid or allowed, by such one of those authorities as may be prescribed.

(3) Regulations making such provision as is mentioned in subsection (2)(b) above may require the other authorities there mentioned to supply the prescribed authority with such information as it may reasonably require in connection with the exercise of its functions under the regulations.

(4) Schedule (Modifications of social security regulations) to this Act—

(a) Part I of which modifies the Social Security (Persons from Abroad) Miscellaneous Amendments Regulations 1996; and
(b) Part II of which modifies the Social Security (Persons from Abroad) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1996,

shall have effect.

(5) The Jobseeker's Allowance (Amendment) Regulations 1996 shall have effect as if they had been made on the day on which this Act is passed.

(6) In this section—

"claim for asylum" and "the Convention" have the same meanings as in the 1993 Act;

"prescribed" means prescribed by regulations;

"regulations"—

(a) in relation to income support, housing benefit or council tax benefit under the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, means regulations under that Act or the Social Security Administration Act 1992;
(b) in relation to income support or housing benefit under the Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992, means regulations under that Act or the Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1992;
(c) in relation to jobseeker's allowance under the Jobseekers Act 1995, means regulations under that Act or the Social Security Administration Act 1992;
(d) in relation to jobseeker's allowance under the Jobseekers (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, means regulations under that Order or the Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1992."

7 pm

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I must inform the House that the Lords amendment involves privilege. With this, we may consider the following: Government amendments (a), (b) and (c), and amendments (d), (h), (e) and (f) to the Lords amendment.
Lords amendments Nos. 27 and 28, and Government amendments (a) and (b) to Lords amendment No. 28.

Mr. Lilley: The procedures for claiming asylum were set up to help the small number of people who escape tyrannous regimes, but the rules have been exploited by more and more economic migrants using them to circumvent immigration controls. That situation has been exacerbated by the benefit system. The easy availability of social security benefits has been exploited by an ever-rising number of asylum seekers—more than 90 per cent. of whom turn out not to be genuine.
The losers are genuine refugees. They come here not for benefit but for sanctuary, but their asylum claims are delayed as the system becomes swamped by an ever-increasing number of bogus claims, and they have to wait longer and longer for a decision. The other losers are the taxpayers. If we had done nothing, the cost would soon have exceeded £400 million a year. We are determined that this country shall remain a sanctuary for genuine refugees.
The changes I introduced in February, with parliamentary approval, ensure that anyone arriving in the UK as a refugee, and persons trapped here by an upheaval in their home country, will receive benefit help until their claim is turned down. That continued help to asylum seekers is expected to cost £140 million a year. Persons who are found to be genuine refugees, and those granted exceptional leave to remain, will continue to quality for help—which is over and above the sum that I mentioned.
The regulations removed the benefit incentive from illegal immigrants and overstayers who claim asylum when apprehended by the authorities, and from individuals who gained entry to the UK by claiming that they would support themselves without recourse to public funds—and it is surely wrong that they should be able to avoid that requirement by subsequently making an asylum application.
The third change was to end entitlement to benefit if and when a claim to refugee status is found to be invalid. If people choose to appeal against that refusal. the regulations treat them like British citizens, who do not receive benefit while appealing against refusal of a benefit claim.
Those regulations were all agreed by comfortable majorities in both Houses, but, on 21 June, the Court of Appeal decided that the benefit changes required primary legislation. In the light of the court's decision, I moved promptly, and announced the Government's wish to insert a new clause in the Bill to reinstate those successful and much-needed regulations. A new clause and new schedule were agreed in the Upper House and restored the regulations.
I also took the opportunity to meet the concerns that lay behind the Court of Appeal's decision about the tiny minority of asylum seekers—5 per cent. at first decision and 3 per cent. on appeal—who are eventually found to be genuine refugees. Our amendment provided for an individual's benefit to be backdated once he or she is found to be a refugee, which brings treatment of refugees fully into line with that of British citizens who will an appeal against an initial decision to refuse them benefit.

Sir Jim Lester: My right hon. Friend makes the important point that the regulations treat

asylum seekers the same as British citizen—but the latter are claiming a means-tested benefit, whereas there is no such test for refugees.

Mr. Lilley: I am not sure why my hon. Friend thinks that is so, because the same means test applies to asylum speakers as to British citizens, and is in that respect analogous. Refugees will be treated the same as British citizens—now fully so, in that, if they are found to be genuine claimants, they will have their means-tested benefits backdated to the beginning of their claim.

Mr. Corbyn: Surely the Secretary of State appreciates that his point is not logical. No one who appeals against a social security decision, who will normally be resident in this country, does so against a background of absolute destitution. Asylum seekers who are denied benefits face the alternative of complete destitution.

Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman may think the arrangement is illogical, but it is the one that he requested in our earliest debate on the matter. I thought that he would welcome the fact that I listened to his points and made the change. People appealing against asylum decisions may have friends and relatives in this country, whereas individuals appealing against benefit decisions may not have any friends and relatives living in this country—so the situation could be the reverse of that which the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Ms Lynne: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that benefit claimants are able to work, whereas asylum seekers are denied that ability?

Mr. Lilley: That is only partly true. After six months, any asylum seeker is normally given the right to work. We are withdrawing benefits only from persons who have demonstrated that they have the means to support themselves. Individuals who, at the port of entry, declare themselves to be seeking asylum will be entitled to benefit from the moment that they enter the country.

Mr. Chris Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman justify his statement that he is only withdrawing benefits from persons who are able to support themselves? That is patently not the case. Is not the answer to the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Sir J. Lester) that, in one case, an individual is appealing against a benefit decision, whereas in the other, the person is appealing against an asylum decision? The two cases are completely different.

Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman's second point ignores the fact that the asylum claim gives a right to benefit entitlements—so it amounts to much the same thing. What was the hon. Gentleman's first point? He has forgotten.

Mr. Smith: The Secretary of State has forgotten. He claimed—I am astonished that he has forgotten this—that he was withdrawing benefit only from persons who are able to support themselves.

Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman does not realise that anyone who claims at the port will get benefit. Those who do not must have convinced the immigration authorities that they have the means to support themselves in this


country. It is reasonable to hold them to that assurance. They have given it, and demonstrated that they are not asylum seekers but business men, tourists or students.

Mr. Alton: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Lilley: May I make a little progress?

Mr. Alton: It is on that point.

Mr. Lilley: I will make a little progress. I am sure that this theme will run through our subsequent discussions.
As well as, effectively, accepting the regulations and reinstating them through the clause and the schedule, the Lords accepted an Opposition amendment to our clause, which, among other things—I shall return to those other things—extends benefits to those who claim asylum within three days of entering the United Kingdom. That has been presented as a minor change of limited consequence, which mainly affects genuine asylum seekers. If that were so, I would be very happy to accept it. I readily understand why, accepting it on those terms, John McCarthy and the Archbishops of Canterbury and Westminster, for whom I have profound respect, have given it their support.
In fact, the amendment is not minor. It would have major financial consequences—costing £80 million, and far more as people deliberately exploit the loopholes it creates and, of course, respond to the incentives it generates. Far from helping just genuine refugees, the change would be of the greatest help to bogus refugees, since it also creates a whole raft of new incentives for them to claim benefit as well as asylum.
I shall explain what the amendment would do. It extends benefit to three groups. First, it would give benefit to illegal immigrants. Since their immigration is illegal, we cannot say when they came in, so the three-day rule would enable any illegal immigrant, when discovered, no matter how long they had been in the country, to obtain benefits simply by declaring that they had only recently arrived in the country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] Hon. Members display a degree of ignorance of the real world that does them little credit.

Mr. Tony Banks: If the Minister lived in the east end, he would know about the real world.

Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman expresses a profound truth.
The change would also open up opportunities for people to circumvent the rules inherent in the Bill that will enable us to return people who come from a safe third country to that country. People who enter the country through the European Union channel at the channel ports or at airports by waving a forged EU passport at the immigration official would subsequently be able to claim benefit. That cannot be right.

Mr. Alton: The Secretary of State raises a point about falsified papers and forged documents, which is similar to his earlier point, on which I was trying to intervene. Business men, students and people who are classified in any number of ways do not say precisely what has

happened to them in their countries of origin, often because of fear, what they are fleeing from and the persecution they have endured.
If the Secretary of State or a member of his family were fleeing political persecution, does he imagine that the first thing on their mind when they arrived in the country to which they were fleeing would be to ask for the relevant form so that they could fill it out in the accurate way he describes?

Mr. Lilley: My first instinct when faced with authority in foreign countries—I have been faced by the secret police in Uganda—is to tell the truth. I am afraid of getting into trouble by telling lies. That is most people's instinct. One reason why some people tell other stories is that, when they enter the country, they genuinely are business men, students or tourists, and subsequently decide to become asylum seekers.
One of the cases that was heard before the Court of Appeal was of a gentleman who came to this country from Bulgaria because he was a keen follower of the Bulgarian football team. He only subsequently decided that, having got here, he should lodge a claim for asylum. That surely should not entitle someone to the right to benefit.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Lilley: I should like to make a little progress, because I want to get some further factual information into the debate. Hon. Members are clearly reluctant to consider the facts.
Those who support the amendment presume that anyone who makes a claim within three days of arrival is more likely to be genuine than those who delay making a claim for longer periods. I asked to see the figures. The figures for the last quarter, which are the only ones available, show that that is not so.
Indeed, of those who claimed asylum within three days of arrival, 3.5 per cent. were found eventually to be genuine. Of those who claimed after a longer period, 4 per cent. were found to be genuine. Although they are both very small numbers, they do not confirm the belief that people who claim within three days are predominantly genuine.

Ms Abbott: The very first point that the Secretary of State made in arguing against the three-day concession was that it would allow any illegal immigrant merely to state that they had been here only for three days to evade immigration control. If he knew a little more about immigration and nationality matters, he would know that the majority of illegal immigrants are discovered because they are informed on. The same person who informs would therefore be able to testify that someone had been here longer than three days.

Mr. Lilley: There may be some instances for which we would have such evidence. If informants were willing to come forward and testify, what the hon. Lady says would be perfectly true, but in many instances, that would not be so, and people would be able to circumvent the rules.

Mr. Straw: The Secretary of State said that he wanted to impart some facts. Does he accept that the facts that


we are talking about are these: about 5 per cent. of applicants are granted permission to stay as refugees, and on top of that, last year, 18 per cent. were awarded exceptional leave to remain, which makes 23 per cent.? We are talking about people who the Government accept have genuine grounds for staying here: not 5 per cent. but 23 per cent.

Mr. Lilley: The exceptional leave to remain is exactly what it says it is—exceptional, and not a recognition of refugee status. In 80 per cent. of cases last year, people came from three countries—Somalia, Bosnia and Afghanistan. Those countries are currently in a state of some turmoil, so we do not immediately send them back, even if we believe that they do not fulfil the criteria of the Geneva convention.

Mr. Tony Marlow: Could my right hon. Friend say in rough terms what proportion of those seeking asylum have come from another EU country? What would be the effect of reversing the Lords amendment on preventing illegal access to the United Kingdom from EU countries?

Mr. Lilley: Several thousand people every year, and rising, come via an EU third country. That is why my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has taken measures so that we can, as the Geneva convention allows, return people straight to the safe country—France, Belgium or somewhere—through which they came.
The amendment would create a loophole so that, when it was advantageous for people to enter from those countries without declaring themselves, pretending to be EU citizens, and using a forged passport that they had only to wave at the passport official before destroying their documents and claiming that they came directly from their country of origin, we would have no option but to give them benefit.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: The House and people outside would be grateful for what my right hon. Friend has said about the three-day proposal, were it not to have other disadvantages. I think that I am right in recalling that the archbishop's arid the cardinal's letter said that the Lords amendment might not be perfect, and that some flexibility might be important.
Would it be possible, at least in theory, for the three-day rule to apply if it did not give any other advantages to the late applicant? If, for example, they were judged only on asylum rules and not on immigration and deportation rules, and they had to demonstrate that they had arrived in the previous three days, we would get rid of the problem about the long-term illegal immigrants.

Mr. Lilley: The second point would not be possible under the Geneva convention. Under the convention, one is not allowed to discriminate against illegal immigrants. To have a different set of benefit rules and a presumption of proof that applied to them and not other claimants would therefore not be possible.
My hon. Friend suggests that we might change the immigration rules, and I shall come to those in a minute. I should point out, however, that introducing a three-day rule would open up a loophole similar to that available to illegal immigrants, as, in practice, anyone who had

entered the country some while ago could destroy their documentation and claim to have arrived recently. It is common for those claiming asylum to destroy their documents or return them to the agents who brought them here, so that they can be recycled for other users.

Mr. Hartley Booth: Does my right hon. Friend understand and appreciate the point made in the other place, that some people who arrive here in a state of fear and trauma may not understand that they have to claim asylum at the airport? Therefore, will he assure the House that all immigrants or asylum seekers are made aware of their rights in their own language at the airport or port?

Mr. Lilley: Of course people must have access to an interpreter so that they can deal with the immigration authorities. There are interpreting facilities in scores of languages to cope with people arriving from various countries.
The most telling point in the archbishop's letter referred to the difficulties that might be experienced by asylum seekers who cannot speak English. However, there is a degree of flexibility, as was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley). People who arrive at an airport or other port of entry with no interpretation facility are told to come back and complete the formalities in a few days' time. They are then treated as if they had just arrived and were making an in-port claim, although such a claim is made two or three days later. That flexibility will continue when the measure is in force.

Miss Emma Nicholson: I am concerned about the plight of those who may find it difficult to speak at all, such as victims of torture. I have worked with such people. They have been so humiliated by the torture, which has degraded them as human beings and exploded their sense of identity, that they can hardly speak. Apart from their inability to speak English, it may take them months to explain what has happened to them, because they feel so abused, degraded and ruined. Of course they have forged documents. Otherwise, how on earth could they get out—by speaking to the secret police who are torturing them? That is just a joke.

Mr. Lilley: The hon. Lady misunderstands what happens at ports. We do not expect people to know about our benefit regulations or understand the minutiae of bureaucratic detail, as has been suggested. They are simply asked why they are coming to Britain. If they are seeking asylum, they have simply to say so. Surely it would be more difficult for people in the circumstances the hon. Lady describes and for whom we all have immense sympathy to tell some concocted cock-and-bull story than to tell the truth, which is all we require of people arriving in Britain.
There is a misunderstanding about why so many asylum seekers do not claim at the port but wait until they are in country before lodging a claim. It is often suggested that the main reason is that they arrive ignorant and traumatised, but, since we have introduced changes to the benefit regulations, the number of people claiming in country has fallen by two thirds. The figure has fallen by


two thirds since last June. So it is pretty clear that the great majority of people learn pretty quickly about changes in the benefit system, and respond to them.

Mr. Madden: The Secretary of State—I am sure unknowingly—is being entirely disingenuous, as there was a comparable reduction in asylum applications two years before the regulations were introduced. The numbers of asylum applications ebb and flow, for all sorts of reasons. The fluctuation is certainly not affected by the introduction of regulations.
Will the right hon. Gentleman elaborate on the point he was making earlier—that, in some circumstances, people arriving in Britain can be told to come back in two or three days' time and make an asylum application? Will he elaborate on those circumstances? Has he ever been at a desk in Heathrow when large flights are arriving at terminal 4? Has he attended any of those sessions? Does he really think that such casual conversations take place?

Mr. Lilley: If the best the hon. Gentleman can do to explain the two-thirds drop in in-country claims since the regulations were introduced is to suggest that it is just a coincidence, he is grasping at straws. On his second point, about the problems of languages, Heathrow is well equipped with a vast array of interpretation facilities. However, other ports that cater for smaller numbers of people do not have facilities for every language. If someone arrives with an unusual linguistic requirement, such arrangements as I suggested might be necessary should apply.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Lilley: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle), who is a distinguished expert on these matters.

Mr. Charles Wardle: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if anyone is disingenuous, it is the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden)? The last time that the number of asylum applications fell dramatically was immediately after applicants were required to turn up in person at Lunar house.

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend wins game, set and match on that point. He is absolutely right.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will the Minister give way on that point?

Mr. Lilley: As this is not Question Time, may I make a little progress?

Mr. Dalyell: rose—

Mr. Lilley: Knowing the hon. Gentleman's persistence, I give way to him.

Mr. Dalyell: I simply follow up my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), who asked the Secretary of State whether he had direct experience of such cases. During business questions on 11 July, I asked the Leader of the House the following question:
May I ask a question that by implication could be interpreted as being offensive, but is not meant to be? Cabinet members have some 300 years' experience between them as constituency Members of Parliament. Can we be told, before Monday's debate, whether any member of the Cabinet, as a constituency Member, has become involved with asylum seekers within three days of their arrival in this country? I have, and it is a very chastening experience, because the asylum seekers are extremely confused when they arrive. I wish to know whether any Cabinet member or any Home Office Minister has had that experience in the course of their constituency duties."—[Official Report, 11 July 1996; Vol. 281, c. 582.]
The Leader of the House, ever courteous, said that he would make inquiries.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That was a very long intervention. The hon. Gentleman should wait until he can make his own speech.

Mr. Lilley: I have not asked all my Cabinet colleagues, but as I represent a constituency with a large immigrant population, I have certainly had to deal with such cases.

Mr. Dalyell: Within three days?

Mr. Lilley: I have experience of cases involving people seeking asylum or in other ways in conflict with the immigration and asylum laws. The most recent case that I can think of offhand was within three days, but it involved the wife of someone who had entered the country illegally, who was about to claim asylum three days later. I do not know whether that falls within the hon. Gentleman's circumstances, but it is an example of what happens. All hon. Members are used to such cases.
The main reason why people claim in country rather than at the port of entry is that they are advised to do so by their relatives and friends, or in most cases their agents. Let us acknowledge that most people coming to this country as asylum seekers have agents. In almost every case mentioned in The Independent on Sunday report yesterday, the person concerned had an agent who had been paid to help them leave their own country and enter Britain. Agents give that advice because it is—or used to be—in the interests of asylum seekers to make a claim in country rather than at the port of entry.
Although the same criteria and process of assessing an asylum claim apply whether it is made at port or in country, different rules apply once the application has been turned down and the applicant has entered the normal appeal process if he is an in-country claimant, rather than in-port. In-country claimants whose claim to asylum status is rejected can invoke complex immigration law appeal rights against deportation that can drag on far longer than those available to port applicants. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has said, they do so, and many hope to prolong their stay indefinitely. It is wrong that we should enable them to do so by extending benefit and rewarding those who have failed to tell the truth simply to get a better immigration status by claiming in country.

Mr. Keith Hill: If the Secretary of State is right, and most in-country applicants have been put up to it by outside advisers, can he explain why in-country applications for asylum are twice as successful as in-port applications?

Mr. Lilley: They are not. The figures vary from year to year, but in both cases they are very small. As I have just said, the proportion of successful claims among those who claim within three days is lower than for those who wait longer.
The amendment extends the right to benefit to people who have been found not to be genuine refugees. Anyone claiming at the port or within three days will, under the amendment, retain the right to benefit throughout their appeal process—even after they have been found not to be a genuine asylum seeker at the first decision point. That means that, under the amendment, they will have greater rights to benefit than British residents in analogous circumstances. That cannot be right, and it would be extremely costly. It demonstrates that the amendment goes far further than its apologists suggest.
The amendment effectively denies the Government the right to bring in any regulation to withdraw benefits from anyone claiming at the port or within three days as long as they continue to maintain their claim as an asylum seeker, so we could not withdraw benefits after he or she had been found not to be genuine. The amendment would, as a whole, be costly. It would cost £80 million even if there was no behavioural change, no attempt to exploit the loopholes and no incentive effect that encouraged more people to come to this country and lodge asylum claims.

Mr. Alton: The Secretary of State has made a great deal over the months about the costs involved, and all of us are conscious of that. But will he confirm that, if every person who came to this country—not as an immigrant, but as an asylum seeker or refugee—was fraudulent, we would still be talking about one third of 1 per cent. of his entire departmental budget? The parliamentary time that we have taken on the issue leads me to wonder what motives were behind the introduction of the measure in the first place.

Mr. Lilley: The cost would be some £400 million. If that has to be met within the social security budget—as the hon. Gentleman suggests—that is equivalent to cutting the basic state pension by 1 per cent. Is that what the Liberal Democrat party proposes? Is that what the Opposition are proposing? The Opposition have told us that they will restore the benefits, and have also said that they will not allow any net increase in the social security budget. That must mean that they are proposing to reduce benefits going to British citizens to finance the extension of benefits to largely bogus asylum seekers.

Ms Glenda Jackson: rose—

Mr. Lilley: This will be the last intervention that I take, as I want to leave time for other hon. Members to speak.

Ms Jackson: I am most grateful to the Secretary of State. I should like some clarification of the figure of £400 million that he has given. When the changes to the

benefit system were introduced, we were told that the savings to the taxpayer would be some £200 million. Last week, the Secretary of State inflated that figure to £300 million. Given that we have heard about the savings that have been made, how can we now be looking at the possibility of £400 million being saved? Does the Secretary of State know either the costs or the numbers?

Mr. Lilley: I can explain to the hon. Lady. When we made the assessment, we assumed that there would be no reduction in the number of claims. On that basis, the figure was about £200 million in a full year. There has been a sharp reduction in the number of claims, and that has enhanced the likely savings to something like £274 million. But that means that we are continuing to pay out some £140 million to people who were in-port applicants, making a total of about £400 million—the figure that I gave to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton). I hope that that satisfies the hon. Lady.
It is important to make savings, and the Opposition suggest that that can be done purely by speeding up the administrative process. They are mistaken. As long as we have a benefit enticement to people to come here, ever-increasing numbers will do so and will clog up the system, and it will not be possible for us to speed up the assessment of claims.
As a result of the changes we made, the overall number of claims fell by more than half since January 1995, and by two thirds as far as in-country claims were concerned. As the asylum system is relieved from a flood of bogus claims, so it is easier to process those remaining, which is of great benefit to genuine claimants.
Last month, 75 per cent. of all new in-country claims were cleared through the short decision procedure in, on average, one month. But we believe that it is important to do better, and we remain committed to further improvements. We are investing an extra £37 million to speed up asylum decisions and appeals, and the Home Office is introducing a major computerisation scheme, and is further extending the short procedure.
Above all, the measures in the Bill as a whole will further speed up the process, and will tackle claims from safe third countries and from white list countries. Yet the Opposition—while saying that instead of curbing entitlements, they would make savings by improving the efficiency with which claims are dealt—are opposing almost all the changes contained in the Bill.
The Opposition cannot have it both ways. If they leave in existence a benefit lure, they will make it more difficult to give a speedy assessment to genuine benefit claimants. That is what those who have expressed concern about the issue in the press and the media recently want. We share their desire to see a speedy assessment of genuine claimants, but we believe that that will be possible only if we make the amendments that we moved in another place, and do not accept the specific amendment that will effectively drive a coach and horses through the Bill.
I believe that much of the concern expressed about the issue has been based on inaccuracies. A large majority of those seeking asylum do abuse the system. There is no question of taking away benefit just because people do not understand the procedures of claiming asylum. We are taking away benefit only from illegal immigrants, from people who change their story after they have arrived in


Britain claiming to be something other than asylum seekers, and from people found not to be genuine refugees.
The genuine refugee has nothing to fear from this change. This country has always been a safe haven for genuine refugees, and will remain so. I ask the House to reject the clause as it now stands, and to amend it to restore the Government's original intention, which was agreed by this House in January.

Mr. Chris Smith: I want to refer first to the issue of the three days, which the House of Lords put into the Bill and which the Government are seeking to delete. I want to tackle the fundamental assumption that underlies everything that the Government have said and done on that issue—if someone does not apply for asylum the moment that he sets foot in this country at port, his claim is somehow inevitably bogus. That is what the Government believe, because it is the logic that underlies everything that the Secretary of State has said. Yet the figures disprove that thesis. Of the 775 people granted refugee status in the first four months of this year, 610 were in-country applicants.
In a rather dismissive response to my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill) on that question, the Secretary of State said that the figures vary from year to year. For every one of the past four years, the approval rate for in-country applicants has been higher than that for port-of-entry applicants. So the Government's assumption that, simply because one does not apply at the port of entry, one is more likely to be a bogus applicant, is false.
The Secretary of State has been parading himself around the radio and television studios in the past few days, talking about people who come in as students, business men and tourists. He says that such people cannot be genuine refugees. He clearly has no idea of the circumstances of someone who is genuinely fleeing from oppression, who has to adopt such guises to seek a safe haven here.

Mr. Lilley: Would the hon. Gentleman care to explain why the change in the benefit rules that took away entitlement to benefit from those who claim in country has led to a two-thirds reduction in people making claims in country?

Mr. Smith: The Government are trying to starve genuine refugees out of this country. Of course, that change may well have an effect, but my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) said that there are ebbs and flows in applications, which is a valid point.
The Secretary of State clearly does not understand what drives people to flee from oppression in their own country. They might well be frightened of any figure in authority and, when confronted with such a figure at the port of entry, they will not be confident about immediately telling that person their life story. They might well have been given bad advice before they left, but that does not mean that they are not genuine asylum seekers. They might well not be questioned intensively at the port, depending on the port of entry. They may well have had to flee with false papers because that was the only way in which they could get out of their country. Their one anxiety may be to get in and be safe in this country.
Those are all circumstances in which people who are genuinely fleeing from oppression and are in fear of their life—often people have been subjected to torture—arrive at the initial point of entry. To assume that, simply because they come in with other papers or in another guise, they are not legitimate refugees, is a false assumption.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: rose—

Mr. Smith: I will not give way at the moment because many hon. Members want to speak.

Mr. Hughes: rose—

Mr. Smith: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in due course. I want to make some progress.
The House of Lords, by including a three working days period of grace to allow someone who is genuinely fleeing from persecution to contact his or her community here and, perhaps, friends or a solicitor and make an application for asylum, has made a reasonable, commonsense, small extension of the provision. That period of grace will ensure that some genuine refugees who are excluded by the Government's provisions can be included and will be entitled to benefit.
The Secretary of State argued that the change would help illegal immigrants and asked how we would tell if someone claimed that he entered the country three days ago, when he did not. That is a bogus argument. All the Government need to do is to provide clear guidance that proof of the date of entry is required before benefit entitlement can be achieved. The moment that that is achieved, the Secretary of State's entire argument falls.
7.45 pm
The Secretary of State also told us that the proposal would cost £80 million. [Interruption.] It might pay Conservative Members to attend to the figures that the Under-Secretary of State issued to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), who asked about the proportion of asylum seekers last year and in the first six months of this year who had applied for asylum within the first three days after arrival. The Under-Secretary answered my hon. Friend today—5 per cent. of those seeking asylum in the first six months of this calendar year applied within the first three days. I have the answer here.
That 5 per cent. figure means that the Secretary of State's figure of £80 million as the extra cost of the Lords amendment is bogus. If one allows an average of a year and a half for the determination of each of those 5 per cent. of applications, the Secretary of State is assuming an average cost to the social security budget in each case of £30,000 a year. That figure is not credible. The Secretary of State ought to come clean to the House about how he arrived at his £80 million figure, because it does not hold water.

Mr. Lilley: The figure is made up of the two factors involved in the Opposition amendment. One is extending the benefit entitlement to those who claim within three days of arrival and the other is extending the right to benefit of those who claim at the port and those who claim


within three days of arrival into the appeal process, which is very expensive. The two together come to about £80 million.

Mr. Smith: I took that into account in the figures that I just gave. If the Secretary of State had been listening, he would have understood that I had.

Mr. Alton: The appeal process in itself is revealing. The Refugee Legal Centre—an organisation funded by the Home Office and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees—has recorded a 20 per cent. success rate in the past three months. The issue is one of representation. If refugees and asylum seekers are properly represented, the number of successful appeals increases—the inadequacy of representation was raised by Conservative Members in Committee. The argument that virtually everyone who comes in is bogus has been shown to be nonsense.

Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman is right. The Government continually fail to point out that it is not only those who are granted full refugee status who are legitimately here at the end of the asylum-seeking process, but people who are granted exceptional leave to remain. The figures are far higher than the Government keep claiming.

Mr. Madden: The Secretary of State's claims about savings are as bogus as his claims that the regulations alone have caused the reduction in asylum seekers. The Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) robustly rejected my claim that there had been similar reductions in earlier years. Perhaps they will accept the briefing of the Refugee Legal Centre, which was sent to all hon. Members and states:
between 1991 and 1992 there was a decrease in applications of some 45 per cent. There was no change in the legislation affecting asylum seekers in that period and yet this decrease is almost identical to the reduction presently being proclaimed as the result of changes made to benefit entitlement.
Perhaps the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle will have the good grace to apologise—if they believe the figures of a body that they fund.

Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend makes an effective point.
The Secretary of State argued that the Lords amendment is technically defective, in that it does more than the Lords intended when they passed it. All the speeches in the other place show that they intended it to apply to people who were claiming asylum within three days of the point of application through until the first determination.
There is a legal dispute about the legal definition of
any person who has made a claim for asylum".
If that is to be interpreted in the same way as an asylum seeker is interpreted in Department of Social Security regulations, it applies only up to the point of first determination, and the definition in the Bill is unclear. However, if the. Government—and some of their Back Benchers who might be minded to support the Lords on this—are worried about that, there is a simple answer. If the Government are defeated on amendment (a), it is open to them to table a simple manuscript amendment to ensure

that it is clear that the provision applies only up to first determination, or they could use the opportunity of next Monday's debate in another place to resolve the matter.

Mr. Lilley: Can we be clear about this? Is the hon. Gentleman saying that there was a mistake with the amendment and that it was not meant to restore benefits during the appeal process? Up to now, the Opposition have favoured restoring benefits and we assumed that the amendment was deliberate. Is he saying that they no longer favour restoring benefits during the appeal process? Have they made a giant U-turn and has he consulted the parliamentary Labour party about that?

Mr. Smith: I expected better from the Secretary of State. There are two issues. I am dealing at the moment with what the House of Lords intended when it passed its amendment to the Bill. I shall come in a moment to the issue of appeal in general, because I think that the Government are wrong about that. I am pointing out that their argument about the technicality of the Lords amendment is not valid. They must not let a technicality stand in the way of a sensible proposal that would make the procedure a little more understanding and humane in respect of the circumstances of genuine asylum seekers who are fleeing for their lives.
I promised the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) that I would give way and I shall do so, but for the last time.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: That is a fascinating way in which to debate something. Nevertheless, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. His response to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is inadequate. We need to know what the hon. Gentleman's policy is. Does he agree with the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) that the amounts of money are small and that we should not worry about them, or does he want to stick to his policy so far, which would treat asylum seekers who may turn out to be bogus more generously than British people? What is his policy? He is getting muddled. At the moment, he is saying that he wants to treat asylum seekers—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. That is a long intervention.

Ms Abbott: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) claimed that I had said that the amount of money involved was small. I did not make that excellent point; it was made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton).

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Smith: It is not I who is muddled but the hon. Member for Harrow, West, who clearly cannot tell his Hackney, North from his Mossley Hill. The sooner he does, the better.
It is not only a question of the three-day provision that the House of Lords passed, which we support and will vote to defend. There is the more general issue of what the Government are trying to do with the removal of


benefits from many asylum seekers. There are several reasons why the Opposition oppose what they are doing in general.
First, and most importantly, we oppose the Government's action because it is inhumane. That point was made tellingly by Lord Justice Simon Brown in the Court of Appeal when he said:
this uncompromising draconian policy contemplates a life so destitute that to my mind no civilised nation can tolerate it".
The Court of Appeal was not concerned only about the illegality of trying to introduce the changes by regulation rather than by primary legislation but about the morality and humanity of what the Government were doing. It was right to be concerned. The Archbishop of Canterbury and the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster are also right to be concerned.
Secondly, what the Government are doing hits the bogus and genuine claimant alike. The Government always like to refer to bogus claimants. Indeed, the Secretary of State's letter to all hon. Members of 9 July begins:
I am writing to explain why we are limiting benefits for bogus asylum seekers".
Yes, they are limiting benefits for bogus asylum seekers, but they are also limiting them for genuine asylum seekers. The sooner that the Government admit that, the better.
The third reason why we oppose what the Government are doing is that the cost savings that they claim are mythical. They may be saving a bit of money on the Department of Social Security budget, but the cost for local authorities will rise because they will be left to pick up the pieces. If an asylum seeker who has children is denied benefit—and remember 5,000 come in each year with children—and is left destitute, there is a responsibility on local authorities to take children into care at an average cost of £45,000 per child per year. The Government have recognised that, because they have produced a scheme to reimburse local authorities for the extra costs involved. They even have a scheme to reimburse the social services costs through the Department of Health to the tune of £25 million. They are saving money in one part of the public purse but spending it in another.
The fourth reason why we oppose the Government's action is that it fundamentally undermines the concept of appeal. The Secretary of State is fond of parading the argument that British citizens who appeal against a benefit decision do not receive benefit. He is fond of saying that all he is doing is putting asylum seekers in exactly the same position. That is an entirely fallacious argument, because he is not comparing like with like.
An asylum seeker in receipt of benefit who appealed against a decision to withdraw it would, in the same way as a British citizen, not be entitled to that benefit while the appeal was pending. This is a question not of people appealing against a benefit decision but of their appealing against the decision on whether to grant them asylum. The two are quite different decisions.
In addition, a decision on benefit is taken on factual, objective criteria. A decision on asylum is taken on a subjective assessment by the Home Secretary of the

degree of difficulty in the country of origin and how genuine is the fear of oppression of the individual. They are two completely different issues, and for the Secretary of State deliberately and erroneously to confuse the two is not to do any justice to his argument.
The last reason why we oppose what the Government are doing is that they would be far better employed in speeding up the processing of asylum applications in the first place. The average length of time spent waiting for an initial determination is currently eight months. In February this year, more than 10,000 asylum seekers had been waiting since 1991 for a determination. What the Government are doing is not the way to save money on the benefit bill. The solution is not to leave people—some with children, some with injuries and disabilities—destitute on the streets. It would be much better to speed up the processing of applications.

Mr. Alton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

8 pm

Mr. Smith: I will not give way, I am afraid, because I am trying to conclude and other hon. Members wish to speak.
The Government claim that they are seeking to ensure that Britain is a safe haven and not a soft touch. No one is arguing for a soft touch. We all want to root out bogus claims, and to do it much more quickly, but we do not want to deny legitimate, genuine applicants the means of life while we are doing it. For many entirely legitimate applicants fleeing from real persecution, Britain will become not a safe haven but, if the Government have their way, a place of wretched destitution. The Government should think again.

Sir Patrick Cormack: I do not wish to detain the House long, but I cannot pretend that I am not extremely troubled by this series of amendments. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, with whom I have spoken, knows well that I am concerned.
There were three letters in The Times this morning. I shall briefly draw the attention of the House to them. One, from the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Archbishop of Westminster, is carefully and persuasively worded. One is from our colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir J. Critchley). The one that is really important, in my view, is from Dr. Perutz. I will not read it to the House, but I shall quote one paragraph:
Beginning with the Huguenots, asylum-seekers and their descendants have brought fame, health, wealth and even victory to this country.
He cites a number of eminent men and women who have come to this country fleeing persecution, have made it their home and have brought great honour upon it, and great wealth, too, in many cases.
I was taught to love Shakespeare by a German refugee who was not a Jew but had some Jewish blood. If he had stayed in Nazi Germany, he would doubtless have suffered, as so many others did. He came to this country and was given succour. He more than repaid the refuge that was given to him.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: Is my hon. Friend suggesting that any of the people whose names were set out in that letter were claiming benefit? It was all


pre-welfare state. The debate is not about whether people should come into this country and whether they are genuine asylum seekers but about whether they should claim benefit.

Sir Patrick Cormack: I am tempted to stray, but I will not. The debate is about more than that. It is about Britain's reputation as a safe haven. I do not for a moment impugn the sincerity of my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench. I am sure that they share my view and that of Dr. Perutz, as expressed in his letter. However, I am clear that if the Lords amendment is resisted, we shall have made life more difficult for some people—I do not know how many, but obviously some. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has admitted that with his statement about retrospective payments. The very fact that he makes that statement makes it plain that he accepts that some people will be refused and will later receive benefit. That concerns me.
It concerns me that some people persecuted by evil regimes will come into Britain in a state of shock, bewilderment and dismay and will not in the first three days necessarily fully comprehend the circumstances. It is a modest amendment that their lordships have inserted into the Bill. All that it says is that three days' grace should be granted to such people. It was not proposed by outlandish people. Nor is it supported by such people. The Refugee Council is an extremely responsible body. The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux is an extremely responsible organisation. Those bodies have to deal at the sharp end with the problems of refugees. They believe that the amendment to allow three days, modest as it is, will help.
It is important that my right hon. Friends do everything that they possibly can to separate the bogus from the genuine. I hope that not one Member of the House would want a bogus person to benefit. But I am afraid that I have to say that, if faced with the choice, I would rather that a bogus person benefited than that a genuine refugee was sent back to an evil regime. That is the way in which we have conducted our policy over the centuries. It is a policy that has benefited Britain considerably.
I do not see why it is not possible to insist on proof that the person came into the country within three days of the application. I do not see the amendment as opening the floodgates, so that every illegal immigrant could present himself or herself at a benefit office. That is not a valid argument against the amendment. I am prepared to accept that it may be technically flawed. I would not want to argue with that. I should be happy if my right hon. and hon. Friends came up with a series of proposals and formulae that would meet the point. No hon. Member would refuse to listen carefully to such a series of proposals. However, we do not have such a series of proposals. We are urged to reject the Lords amendment, with nothing administrative or otherwise to put in its place.
The reputation of this country is priceless. One of the things that has made Britain a great country—I believe that it is a great country—is the fact that it has been through the centuries a safe haven for those who have fled from desperate regimes and terrible conditions. Whether one talks about Louis XIV revoking the edict of Nantes, or those who came over in the 19th century fleeing pogroms, or those who came during the evil years of the 1930s from Nazi Germany, or those who are here now,

having fled the evil of Bosnia in the past two or three years, one is talking of people who have suffered desperately, for whom Britain is a beacon. Why is it a beacon? It is because of the standards and values that they believe that we encapsulate and personify. At our best we do. The Government would take a little step in the wrong direction and, unless my right hon. Friends can convince me by good administrative proposals or some other means, I cannot take part in voting against the Lords amendment.

Miss Emma Nicholson: It is a pleasure to speak to amendment (d) to Lords amendment No. 24, to which my hon. Friends the Members for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) and for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) have also put their names. It is a simple amendment that would make means-tested benefits available to asylum seekers if the decisions on their cases took longer than 28 days. It would, we believe, mean that asylum seekers would not become victims of bureaucracy and would not be kept waiting too long for their decisions. Given the attitude of the present Government, it would certainly have that effect.
The strength of the Government's case for turning down last-ditch amendments such as amendment (d), which is backed by all the Church leaders, rests on two arguments. The first is the problem of drafting minutiae, which suggests that the Clerks of the House of Lords cannot do their job. I find that difficult to believe. The second has comprised a series of elastic personal guarantees from the Minister of State, which stretched and contracted according to the notes that she received from the Home Office civil servants in the Box. The Secretary of State for Social Security added his guarantees later. Those guarantees are worthless. Perhaps the latest ones from the Secretary of State are as invalid as the selective unemployment figures that he used recently in Southwark cathedral. While we have listened to those worthless guarantees, the moral minority on the Conservative Benches has sat on its hands when Divisions were called.
Why do I say that the guarantees are worthless? I must be the only person on Opposition Benches who voted in favour of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993. I reread a little of the debate this evening to discover why, unwillingly, I supported the Act. The then Home Secretary, a man I trusted—now the Chancellor of the Exchequer—said in the Second Reading debate:
The Bill will achieve a better system for making prompt and fair decisions when we receive applications to settle in this country … That in itself will ease the pressures on all our public services."—[Official Report, 2 November 1992; Vol. 213, c. 22.]
Yet recent Home Office statistics show that, in 1994, 4,170 decisions were made on the cases of applicants who applied in that year, as opposed to 11,390 decisions made on cases lodged in previous years. The higher figure for previous years even excludes an additional 5,435 decisions for which no year of application was recorded.
We should not confuse decisions and applications. The total of 4,170 decisions taken in 1994 on cases lodged in 1994, made up only 13 per cent. of the total number of applications in that year. How, therefore, can I believe the assurances given by Ministers tonight when the assurances given by a previous Home Secretary have proved so swiftly to have been invalid? The figures also show that applicants wait far more than three months for initial decisions to be made, and cases take years to


resolve. The decision may take only three to six months, but files sit in backlogs waiting to be considered. That may be the result of a lack of resources, poor planning or inefficiency. Current delays are impossible to justify now, but they would be completely unacceptable if applicants were to be excluded from benefits as the Government desire.
Those with exceptional leave to remain would also benefit from amendment (d). Some 7,825 people received exceptional leave to remain in 1992, 5,520 in 1993 and 1,875 in 1994. All of them—more than 15,000—would have been denied benefit by the Government's proposals, yet all have been found to have genuine reasons for being too frightened to go back to their homes. Those 15,000 people also have families, so the number of people in trouble would have been significantly larger. I voted for the 1993 Act. I know now that it has become a licence to bully.
I am concerned when the Secretary of State talks about forged European Union passports and false papers. Does he not understand that people in Iraq cannot get a passport, let alone a visa? They cannot travel unless they travel on false papers. How can people in Iraq have their family name on any paper when Saddam Hussein has wiped out all family names and people are allowed to use only their forenames?

Mr. Lilley: I entirely accept that people need to resort to all sorts of devices to leave an oppressive country, but they do not need to resort to devices or dishonesty to enter this country. The hon. Lady gave the example of Iraq. That country has a tyrannous regime and we were recently at war with it; we might expect that even genuine asylum seekers would be fearful on entering this country, but none the less a majority of those claimants claim at the port and not in country. On the other hand, the vast majority of claimants from the Indian subcontinent, who follow a well-oiled trail to this country, claim in country and not at port because they know that that gives them an advantageous status in the immigration rules when their claims are subsequently found to be bogus.

Miss Nicholson: Iraq was a protected state of the United Kingdom for many years and the Iraqi people know Britain well and they know our systems. I am sad to have to tell the Secretary of State that he is known by the Iraqi refugees in London—and many thousands of other refugees—as monster Lilley. I take no pleasure in that and, like others who have spoken, I want the Government to make the United Kingdom respected internationally, not disrespected.
The Secretary of State has talked about bogus asylum seekers abusing the system, but a more competently run system would not be open to such abuse. The Secretary of State's job should be on the line tonight, not the benefits of some of the most miserable people in the world.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: The earlier part of the speech made by the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Miss Nicholson) was better received than her unjustified attack on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security.
The essential element of our debate tonight is how to meet the objective of the Lords amendment and of the letter from the Moderator of the Free Church and the Archbishops of Canterbury and Westminster and, at the same time, to see if it is still possible—here or in another place, if we do not accept Lords amendment No. 24—to meet the Government's aim. I do not regard Lord Carr—the former Home Secretary—Lord Donaldson, the former Master of the Rolls, or the Earl of Sandwich as revolutionaries. They are people who know what they are talking about because they have served in their different ways, and we should take their points as seriously as we do those of the Church leaders.
I suggest to my right hon. Friends in the Home Office and the Department of Social Security that we should try to recognise that a small number of people who have a justifiable claim for refugee status should be able to claim not only at the moment that they arrive in this country, but within a day or two afterwards. They should be able to do that by putting themselves in the position that they would have been in had they claimed when they arrived, legally or illegally. They should have to demonstrate when they arrived, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) suggested, and they should give up any claim they might have under immigration rules and agree to be treated only under the asylum rules. That would remove any artificial incentives for people to apply for asylum after their arrival.
We shall achieve our desired ends through tight limitations and by removing any advantage people may derive from sneaking into the country giving a false story, making false declarations that they can support themselves, or appealing against deportation on immigration grounds if they fail in their asylum appeal.
We can achieve the flexibility that Church leaders seek in another way. If the Government will not allow claims for benefit, they should provide a certain amount of money—I hope not too little—to those bodies that will carry the load. I have not visited the refugee centre in Vauxhall or the United Reformed Church centre in Stoke Newington, but I know several people who have, and their testimony is impressive.
I ask my right hon. Friend, when he replies to the debate, to confirm how flexible the system will be. Will he ensure that, before the matter returns to the House of Lords—whether we disagree with the Lords amendment or produce some other Government proposal—the Government will find a way of addressing the genuine concerns of those who want to give those with justifiable asylum claims the chance to live in this country without suffering destitution?
In a letter to The Times of 4 July this year, I am on record as supporting the Government's policy to reduce the number of unjustified asylum claims. I stand by that view. However, it should be possible to reach a compromise and agree not to penalise those who have a genuine—I do not really like to use that word in these circumstances—reason for not applying for asylum immediately. They should not derive any advantage from applying within two or three days of their arriving in this country. If people sneak into the United Kingdom without passing through immigration, the duty should be upon them to demonstrate that they arrived within three days of making an application.

Mr. Tony Banks: I wish that the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) spoke for the entire Conservative party, but unfortunately he does not. We know what the issue is about: it is a hangover from the Conservative party conference of last year or the year before. Stirring up racism and xenophobia might be good for the blue-rinse brigade, but it is not good for those who must represent the people we are discussing tonight—many of whom live in the east end, where I come from.

Mr. Lilley: It may interest the hon. Gentleman to learn that the board of the race relations commission, which was meeting when I delivered my speech, considered it and was delighted to find that it did not contain any such invective.

Mr. Banks: I am sorry; I would never accuse the Secretary of State of using invective in his speeches to Conservative party conferences. I remember his, "I have a little list" speech. If he believes that that sort of speech does not stir up racism and xenophobia, he does not understand the meaning of those words. That is what lies behind the proposal tonight.
As the hon. Member for South Staffordshire said, the Lords amendment is modest: it calls for a three-day delay. The Secretary of State and other Conservative Members must try to imagine how they would feel if they had just arrived in this country fleeing from an evil regime. How rational would they be? The Secretary of State says that the easiest thing to do is speak the truth—hon. Members do not always follow that advice—but we must consider the circumstances.
People arriving in this country may not speak English and they may have left families or children behind in their country of origin. The idea that they will be totally coherent regarding their rights and their intentions beggars belief—it will not work like that. That is why this modest and reasonable proposal should be acceptable to a reasonable Government—if the Government were trying to help such people.
The Secretary of State did not say whether or how often he has visited terminal 4 to watch people entering this country and claiming asylum or refugee status. We should be grateful that people want to come to this country. We talk about people being economic refugees, as if that were a crime. People come to the United Kingdom to improve their lot. They want to contribute: they do not want to live off social security. Some might do that, but some who live here do it also. Most asylum seekers want to improve their personal circumstances and those of their families. We should not refer to "bogus" asylum seekers, as though they are useless people who can make no contribution to society.
Allowing that point to pass, we must ask how helpful are the immigration officials at the port of entry. In my opinion, they are not helpful at all: they certainly do not explain people's rights. They ask trick questions—I have listened to them—to try to trap people because they do not want asylum seekers to enter the country. Little helpful information is offered at the port of entry. That is a sad thing to say in this place, but it is my experience.
Never mind the circumstances—obviously I speak in support of the Lords amendment—let us examine the practicalities if the Government are successful in forcing through their amendments. What will happen to the

people from whom all benefit is withdrawn? Children may be involved. What will people do? Come to borough councils' social services offices. What will the borough councils do? Refer asylum seekers to the refugee centre in Newham, where they will receive £15 and a food hamper. That is not very generous, but it is all that the centre can afford. Such benefit soon runs out.
What will the local authorities do? Unlike in some Conservative constituencies, in Newham there may be 10,000 or more refugees. Many people who come to my constituency advice centres do not appear on the electoral register. They are considered to be my constituents, but much of my work load consists of trying to explain rights to people who are not registered voters. When we examine hon. Members' work loads, we should look not only at the number of registered electors but at the work load of individual Members of Parliament.
I ask the Secretary of State: what will happen in the London borough of Newham when people are bereft of any recourse to state aid? What will the local council do with people who have no resources and no access to funds?

Mr. Alton: In areas such as the hon. Gentleman's and in cities such as mine, people will live on the streets and we shall end up with shanty towns like those in the United States.

Mr. Banks: That is a strong possibility. The Minister of State has visited my borough. I should like to take her to the areas where immigrants and those waiting for the Department to process their applications live. The hon. Lady smiles, but she would not like to live like that—I certainly would not. As I do not want to live like that, I am not prepared to condone the conditions that those people must endure.
If the Secretary of State manages to smash the amendments through the House tonight, what will he then do to assist the hard-pressed borough of Newham where the problem is concentrated? We welcome refugees to the east end, but we need Government support. Today the Government are showing two fingers to us, two fingers to those who turn up in this country seeking asylum and two fingers to those who must look after them on their arrival. It is disgraceful that the Secretary of State should turn down the Lords amendment, and I hope that he will be defeated.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: I hope that I can lower the temperature following that rant by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). Many of those who are listening to the debate will think that we have taken leave of our senses shortly after giving ourselves a substantial pay rise. I shall examine some of the points that have been made. The hon. Gentleman suggested that we are being racist in questioning the abuse of public money. That idea is too preposterous for words. Most—if not all—Conservative Members would not tolerate any action that our Government took that was racist in any sense, and I think that the House showed how united it was against racism in a series of debates that we had before.
My former hon. Friend—still the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Miss Nicholson)—talked about Iraqis. It may well be the case that people from


Iraq and from other terrible regimes want to leave their countries and cannot expect to come without forged passports, exit visas or whatever. But all they have to say when they arrive is, "Asylum." They do not have to say any more before we give them asylum, and with it they get social security benefits, housing benefits, health benefits, education benefits. All they have to do is say, "Asylum," and if they cannot "speaka da English"—[Interruption.] All they have to do is indicate that they cannot speak English, and the immigration authorities will provide them with somebody who will translate for them. All that person has to do is to say, "If you are a genuine asylum seeker, because you're in a state, you've obviously been beaten up, you've got burns all over your body, you can claim asylum." That is what the immigration service provides. It provides translators, people who will help them. It is nonsense to say that that does not happen.

Ms Abbott: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Sir Ivan Lawrence: I am sure that the hon. Lady will want to make her own contribution in a moment.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), for whom I have much respect, showed some confusion. The people who are here and make a claim for asylum in country may still be able to get asylum or to get extended right to remain. All we are saying is that those people will not get benefits. All the people to whom he referred in the letter from the academic in The Times today were those who got asylum but who did not get benefits.

Miss Emma Nicholson: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Sir Ivan Lawrence: No, please, I have a short time in which to speak, and most hon. Members will make their contributions, or will have already made them.
The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) spoke about the need to speed up. Of course there is such a need. Everybody agrees that there is a need to speed up asylum applications, but one of the best ways to do so is by reducing the number who make asylum applications, 95 per cent. of which are bogus. If that number is reduced, the legal, justified and genuine applications that are made by asylum seekers will be processed that much more quickly.
The background for this legislation is that, nine years ago, 5,700 people applied for asylum in this country, and now the number has risen to 50,000. It is rising in this country, whereas it is falling in all the countries in Europe that have tightened their asylum-seeking requirements. Italy does not even provide benefits for asylum seekers. That is why people want to come to Britain. For too long we have said, "We have this very proud tradition. We will not question too deeply, and of course you will have benefits."
I think that people outside think that we are mad having a debate on this not about the people who come to this country who genuinely seek asylum, who say at the port

of entry, "Asylum," or get a translator to help them, but about people who are not inarticulate, who are not quivering with fear or are too humiliated to speak. Seventy per cent. of them enter the country, saying, "I want to visit." They have with them their sponsor and have filled in applications and forms that set out clearly how much money they have so that they will not be a burden on the state. They come in with their return tickets, saying, "I have business to do. I am a business man. These are the men I am doing business with. These are the men who will guarantee that I will be not one penny burden on the taxpayer." They come into the country and say, "I am a student. I have a place at this college. I will not be a burden on the state because the following people and organisations are helping me." They are the people who, when they turn round later and say, "I am an asylum seeker, please let me come in," have lied and cheated their way here.

Sir David Steel: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Sir Ivan Lawrence: I am sorry, but I shall not give way, as too many hon. Members want to speak in what is a short debate.
The people outside—

Mr. Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can we have your advice? When we are confronted by an hon. Member who refuses to give way, while listing a catalogue, a tissue of lies and untruths—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will want to withdraw the word, "lies".

Mr. Madden: I certainly withdraw the word, "lies," but substitute the term "deliberate falsehoods".
What can we do when the hon. and learned Gentleman refuses to give way to Opposition Members?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman can do nothing. The hon. and learned Gentleman is responsible for his own speech and whether he gives way.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: The only reason why I shall not give way is that it would prolong my speech and many other hon. Members want to speak. I notice that the hon. Gentleman's colleague on the Front Bench gave way only once, and my right hon. Friend gave way so many times that his speech went on for much longer than he intended.
I accept the hon. Gentleman's apology, but he has just shown that he is so carried away that he is capable of misjudgment, and that is what I am afraid is dictating so much of the debate. We are losing control of ourselves. I was merely making the point that our constituents simply do not expect us to provide social security benefits all the way down the line for illegal immigrants. I do not think that people outside want to provide social security benefits for people who come into this country, promising that they can afford to be here without being any burden on the state, pretending, or perhaps changing their minds later, that they are students when they are not, that they are business men when they are not, that they are genuine visitors with genuine sponsors when they are not—all of


whom have to be interviewed; all of whom have to be articulate; all of whom have to satisfy the immigration authorities that their application sounds genuine.
To say that those people are petrified, that they cannot explain themselves or that they are so humiliated, is to paint a completely false picture about what happens with 70 per cent. of applicants who are in-house applicants, having changed their minds as to the reasons why they are here.
We must take a sensible grip of ourselves. Ordinary, genuine asylum seekers will nearly always claim asylum when they arrive. They will get asylum and continue to get benefit. Those who are here and who have changed their minds can still satisfy the authorities that they are genuine asylum seekers and they will be given asylum or extended right to remain, but they will not get benefits. For the illegals and everybody else, I am afraid that the public are against Opposition Members who think that what is needed is a bigger handout and that we should be a bigger soft touch than all the other countries of Europe that do not operate such an absurd system of welfare payments in the circumstances that we are discussing.

Mr. Dalyell: The less said about the speech by the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) the better.
Hon. Members who intervene at this point had better have a very good reason for doing so. My good reason is personal experience of having seen—like, I hope, other hon. Members—what happens in the first day when an asylum seeker arrives. I repeat the question that I put to the Leader of the House last Thursday, which was meant not offensively but factually: how many members of the Cabinet and Home Office Ministers have seen what happens in the crucial first three days? The Leader of the House said that he would
draw it to the attention of those who reply to the debate."—[Official Report, 11 July 1996; Vol. 281, c. 582.]
Could we have some kind of factual answer?
On 18 November 1992, at the request of the then Home Secretary—now Chancellor of the Exchequer—I went, along with Dr. Perutz, who wrote to The Times, and Dr. Pirouet of Charter '87, also known as A Charter for Refugees, to see those who were framing the previous Bill. As Home Office records will show, we were allowed an hour and three quarters with a most courteous Mr. Peter Wrench. My interest in the matter is not sudden., and I therefore ask the following questions.
How can the asylum procedures be shaped to allow for the exhaustion, trauma and confusion that many asylum seekers experience on their initial arrival—sometimes so severely that they are unable to give an adequate account of their reasons for seeking asylum? If they later have to change and amplify their stories, they are liable to be accused of lying. In fact, they often are accused of lying, precisely because they have had to amplify and change the stories that they gave in their original traumatic condition. What the Secretary of State said about lying is open to considerable question.
Moreover, both male and female rape are all too frequent among those who have suffered imprisonment and torture in a number of countries from which genuine asylum seekers come. The United Kingdom police now know that rape victims often need time and reassurance before they are able to reveal what has happened to them.

I hope that the Secretary of State will make some reference to those who have been raped in the course of torture.
Dr. Stuart Turner, of the traumatic stress clinic in London, specifically notes the incidence of rape, and says that it is doubly evident in some of the cultures from which asylum seekers come. An amendment permitting a person to apply for asylum within three days of arrival without loss of benefit constitutes a minimal recognition of that difficulty. I am a newcomer to the Bill; others have worked on it long and hard. I hope, however, that I shall receive a reply on the specific question of rape and the general question of whether the Ministers who are giving us this legislation have personally observed the terrible effects of the current arrangements on asylum seekers.
I was very moved by the speech of the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), and it is in that spirit that I ask my questions.

Ms Abbott: I listened with interest to what was said by the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence). I understand that he is a lawyer; if he is, I feel genuinely sorry for anyone whom he seeks to represent in court, because he managed completely to ignore the real legal point about the benefit cuts.
Perhaps I can help the hon. and learned Gentleman by reminding him of what Lord Justice Waite said in his judgment. He said that cutting benefits for asylum seekers and refugees would
have the effect of rendering their ostensible statutory right to a proper consideration of their claims in this country valueless in practice by making it not merely difficult but totally impossible for them to remain here to pursue those claims.
I am struck by the fact that a lawyer of the hon. and learned Gentleman's experience has missed the central legal point that it is no use having a right to appeal if the person concerned is made destitute while exercising that right: the right becomes valueless. Either the hon. and learned Gentleman missed that point, or he did not care to comment on it.
I also listened with interest to the remarks of the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack). During his heartfelt speech, in which he spoke for most hon. Members on both sides of the House, my attention was drawn to the expression on the faces of Ministers. When he called in aid the point that it would be damaging to this country's international reputation if we introduced changes that might hurt genuine refugees, Ministers rolled their eyes and sneered. It has come to something when Ministers sneer at hon. Members who express genuine concern for the country's reputation. If Ministers think that, for the sake of a fraction of the social security budget, it is worth throwing away a reputation for fair play in regard to refugees, that tells us something about them. It also tells us something about the respect that they have for their Back-Bench colleagues.
8.45 pm
The substance of Ministers' arguments for the benefit cut is that anyone who claims refugee status in country is more likely to be bogus than someone who claims it at the port. Over and over, hon. Members on both sides of the House have put it to Ministers that there is not a shred of statistical evidence to demonstrate that people who claim in country are more likely to be bogus than those


who claim at the port; over and over, Ministers have refused to deal with that fact. In my view, however, that fact blows away the whole basis of their case.
As hon. Members have said, this is a modest amendment. It will rule out the very small number of people who may have been here for six months, a year or longer, and then claim refugee status gratuitously, while giving confused and frightened people a few days in which to collect their thoughts, obtain advice and put in a claim. It will do a good deal to help genuine refugees.
I have listened to the debate with interest. I have been struck both by Conservative Members' unwillingness to face the truth about their case—which I believe has no basis in fact—and by the number of hon. Members who have jumped up to complain that the great British public do not want to give benefits to foreigners and "tinted people". Those hon. Members—some of whom are not present now—are the same hon. Members who, year after year, rose to denounce Nelson Mandela as a terrorist and to say that he should be hanged. History has shown that their position was both morally and politically bankrupt, and I believe that history will show that those who vote against this modest amendment are just as morally and politically bankrupt as the Conservative Members who, year after year, denounced Nelson Mandela as a terrorist who was beneath contempt.

Ms Roseanna Cunningham: I, too, am disgusted by some of the squalid sentiments that have been expressed tonight. I am sure that I speak for many other hon. Members when I dissociate myself from those sentiments, and state categorically that what the Government say is not being said in my name. If their proposal is passed tonight, it will not be passed with any agreement from my party.
As I listened to the speeches, some simple maxims ran through my mind. Two of them form the basis of our entire system of justice. One is the belief in innocence until proof of guilt; the second, deriving from that, is that it is better for one guilty person to go free than for 10 innocent people to be convicted.
We are discussing a fairly straightforward issue of natural justice, which the Government are ignoring. The implication of everything that is being said—particularly by the Secretary of State—is that in-country applicants are not genuine asylum seekers but, by definition, bogus applicants. Yet most applicants have applied on an in-country basis and they have greater success than those who apply at the port of entry.
I understand that the Refugee Council's figures for 1993 show that some 12.8 per cent. of in-country applications were successful, compared with 4.3 per cent. of port applications, so, in 1993 at least, people were three times more likely to be successful if they applied in country. I would have made that point if the Secretary of State had allowed me to intervene in his speech because it seemed to run counter to his figures.
It is not hard to come up with reasons why there should be that differential. We have discussed them tonight, but many Conservative Members appear not to accept the reality of disorientation and distress. It does not take much imagination to put oneself into the shoes of someone who comes to this country from regimes that we are able to

read, hear and know about. Their disorientation and distress could be enormous, amounting, in some cases, to outright trauma, which again the Government do not appear to want to recognise.
In many cases, people will be completely ignorant of the need to apply immediately for refugee status. In many cases, that ignorance would be understandable. The Government have not dealt with that, other than to make spurious points, for example, about interpreters somehow magically metamorphosing themselves into advisers. In my experience in court, interpreters simply interpret the words. They are not there to give advice—it is not their job to do so. In any case, the Nuffield interpreter project, set up in 1991, highlighted what in its view were serious miscarriages of justice as a result of shoddy interpreting in other sectors of the public service. That project was set up with Home Office funding, so I assume that the Government are aware of that, yet they want to rely entirely on interpreting services available at the port of entry for people who do not speak English. I understand that that involves some 90 per cent. of those seeking asylum.
The hon. Members for Torridge and West Devon (Miss Nicholson) and for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) spoke about the enormous difficulty that many people have—and, in the example that I wish to raise, that many women have—about talking about some of the things that have happened to them. That should not be underestimated. Women who have been raped or have been subject to other forms of sexual torture will find—[Interruption.] I see the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department shaking his head. I wonder if he has considered this matter. It is extraordinary that it can be dismissed in such a fashion.
Women, particularly those from cultures where expressing themselves about such matters is extremely difficult at the best of times, have enormous difficulty in talking about some of the things that have happened to them. To have to do so in front of strangers at the time of greatest distress, and about issues that, even in their own culture, would cause enormous distress—not to mention the extra problems of talking about rape or torture—is difficult, yet they are somehow expected magically to do so in a calm and rational manner on arrival at Heathrow or other ports of entry. I am sorry, but I just do not accept that they can do so. Ministers know very well that such women cannot do so. The truth is that Ministers simply do not care. That is what appals me most and should appal most people in this country. In many cases, that absolute lack of compassion is explicit in many Conservative Members' speeches.
As I have said, this is a simple issue of natural justice, but, if that concept is too difficult for people to understand, how about simple humanity?

Mr. Gerrard: I want to make some brief points because we are obviously short of time. First, what will happen to people as a result of the Government's wish to reject the Lords amendment? We do not have to guess because the benefit regulations were introduced in February and the court judgment has meant that the Government must try to put them into the Bill.
We know from what has happened to people since those regulations came in that they have had led simply to destitution. The Refugee Council monitoring project has shown that people have ended up on the streets. The


Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture has, I think, sent all of us evidence of what it has found out. Its clients—remember that the foundation is treating victims of torture—have attempted suicide since they were deprived of benefits. More than 40 clients who have been victims of torture alone would have been destitute, but for financial help and food parcels from the foundation.
People are being forced to live on charity handouts, or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) pointed out, the bill will be shifted from social security to local authorities, which have to pick up the tab when taking people in through the Children Act 1989.

Ms Abbott: Does my hon. Friend agree that Ministers do not seem to realise that not just Labour local authorities, but Conservative local authorities such as Westminster will bear a serious burden if the legislation goes through?

Mr. Gerrard: That is absolutely right. It will cut across the political control of local authorities, particularly in London.
The Secretary of State for Social Security, when he introduced the regulations, said that no one who was receiving benefits now would lose benefits, unless there was a negative decision on that case, but there have been cases where a man has claimed, his wife has been attached to his claim and, after that couple has split up, the wife's claim has been treated as a new claim and she has been refused benefits, so women have been left without a penny simply because they and their husbands have split up.
Secondly, much has been made of the question of telling the truth at the port of entry. Members have said, "It is quite simple. You just turn up at the port of entry and say that you are an asylum seeker. There is no reason why any genuine asylum seeker should not do that." The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham) and others have pointed out the difficulties for people who are torture victims. Even if people are not torture victims and are fleeing for other reasons, think of what they have to do to get here in the first place.
Earlier this evening, in an attempt to mollify some of the Conservative Members who were pressing the amendment on involuntary abortion, the Minister of State, Home Office, suggested that it would somehow be possible for people to turn up at a British embassy or high commission, to tell their story, and to say that they were asking for asylum, and that their case would be considered in the light of the evidence and their connections with the UK. I cannot think of a single refugee whom I have come across who has been given a visa by an embassy or high commission in those circumstances. I shall be interested to see the answer to the written question about the number of such people that I have submitted since that first debate.
The Government have introduced a visa regime in every country from which the number of asylum applications has increased. They also introduced the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987, as a result of which, airlines will not take people without papers. That means that people have to persuade a high commission or an embassy to grant a visa for some other reason, such as a visit or a tour. If I came to an airport with such a visa,

I would not be keen to say to the first person whom I met, "By the way, I got my visa in the high commission in SriLanka and I lied to get it." I would not feel safe until I was out of the airport. The next day, or the day after, I might think of claiming asylum, when I felt that I was actually in the country.
Ministers shook their heads when my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) suggested that genuine asylum seekers would be hit as well as the bogus ones. I do not want to make too much of the speech by the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), but he accepted that some genuine asylum seekers would make applications and said that the only difference was that they would not get benefit. Therefore, genuine asylum seekers will lose.
Even if I gave credence to the Home Office decisions on asylum, I would be worried about what is going on. There is a culture of disbelief in the Home Office and the administrative system for dealing with immigration and asylum cases is a shambles. For the Home Office to think only now of computerising such a system is beyond belief. As the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) said, the amendment is modest and, if it is defeated, people will be left destitute.

9 pm

Mr. Corbyn: We have had a long debate and I should like to put on record the fact that the speech by the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) discredited him and every hon. Member. It was an abominable speech in which he sought to plead to the lowest common denominator, and it showed an absolute failure to understand the legal technicalities surrounding asylum seeking. That is surprising for someone who spends so much of his life in courts—perhaps he should be spending more time here. Secondly, he made a naked appeal to racist attitudes throughout the country. It was an absolute disgrace.
In his excellent speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) drew attention to the problems of poverty that are faced by many asylum seekers. In the borough that he and I have the honour to represent, many people are living in absolute destitution. Often, the only way that they have been able to survive is by getting support from asylum refugee communities that have been here for some time, most of whose members are unemployed and relying on benefits. That means that they are sharing misery rather than wealth.
Alternatively, people beg on the streets or are kept by generous people who belong to some of the churches in the borough and who collect money at Sunday services to buy food parcels for asylum-seeking families to make sure that they do not starve. The Secretary of State says that there is no evidence of increased destitution. He could walk not far from his house and talk to people in some of the churches in his borough to find out exactly what the situation is like.
Many families are in a desperate position. We are in danger of having asylum seekers begging on the streets and people living in benders or broken-down cars, or sleeping under railway arches because they have been denied benefit as a result of the Government's obdurate attitude towards asylum seekers. Local authorities will have huge bills trying to ensure that children are maintained under the Children Act 1989.
The Secretary of State spoke about the appeals system and made free use of the term "bogus asylum seekers" because he does not believe that people have a genuine fear of persecution if they return to their own country. The Government should look at some of the evidence on which they are acting. I have had extensive correspondence with the Home Office about people whom I believe to be in danger if they are returned to Nigeria. One case that stands out is that of the Onibiyo family. To the credit of the Government of Guyana, they were prepared to take Ademole Onibiyo. To the disgrace of this Government, he was thrown out of the country and placed in enormous danger. Likewise, people have been forcibly returned to Zaire, to the Ivory Coast and to some other countries in which there is a veneer of electoral democracy, underneath which all the old evil forces of the police and the army and the oppression of individuals are still at work.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I think that Guyana has really shown up the Government in the case mentioned by my hon. Friend. It is one of the poorest countries in the world and cannot afford to look after its own people adequately, yet it held up its hand in that case and our Government did not.

Mr. Corbyn: My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. I shall return shortly to the issue of how the British and European Governments are turning their backs on asylum seekers while others recognise the problems of those people. It is a great credit to President Jagan and the people of Guyana that they were prepared to help out the Onibiyo family.
The hon. and learned Member for Burton demonstrated his ignorance of the procedures—as have the Minister and many other hon. Members—for entering the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) then put his finger absolutely on the point. I remember a debate in this very Chamber about the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987 just before the 1987 general election. It was another flawed piece of legislation rushed through on the basis of a speech from the previous year's Tory party conference. If the Secretary of State troubled to read it or to check the Hansard report of its Committee stage or the debate on its Second Reading, however, he would discover a recognition that it was legitimate for people genuinely fleeing from persecution to use bogus names and false documents to deceive their way out of a country and to deceive their way into a country of safety.
People write books about the genuine heroism of people who fled from Nazi Germany, from pogroms against Jewish people in Russia at the turn of the century, from Chile at the height of the oppression, from El Salvador and from so many other places around the world, Iraq and Iran included. In 50 years, will people write books about how they must deceive their way into Britain to gain a place of safety because of the Government's attitude towards asylum seekers? The history lesson that the Government need to be taught is that they are acting in a grossly inhumane manner at a time when the world is desperately crying out for humanity in the way that people are treated.
The Government's attitude towards the provision of social security payments has been very well dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and

Finsbury and by many other hon. Members. The issue of the three-day rule to make an application has also been dealt with very well. I do not believe that the Secretary of State has ever bothered to go to any port of entry to see what it is like when someone is fleeing from somewhere and attempting to seek asylum. If he can, I ask him to put himself in the mind of a Kurdish person coming out of Turkey, Iran or Iraq, where Kurds face the most appalling persecution in their villages, which have been bombed and burnt out by the army. They get themselves away from that community, to Ankara or to Istanbul, to try to get a plane out.
Those people have to get a visa and an airline to take them. So they go along to a normal, reputable airline, such as British Airways, but people there tell them, "Sorry; we can't take you because the Home Office might not admit you, and we'll be fined £2,000 if subsequently you're not admitted, and we'll have to bring you back." So they go to the back streets and they pay out a great deal of money to a corrupt travel agent who buys them a plane ticket and is prepared to bear the danger of paying the fine. It is another example of exploitation of people in fear.
It is quite possible that those people have been brought up in a community in which anyone wearing a uniform is just not trusted. When they arrive at a port of entry and are confronted by people in uniform, they might not be so trusting of them as those of us who have grown up in a slightly different atmosphere with different attitudes. So they get themselves into the country by whatever means they can, and then they do something about the situation.
We are talking about a minimal and modest amendment—one that will merely allow three days for an application to be made. Some hon. Members said that information should be given to potential asylum seekers, and they were jeered at by the hon. and learned Member for Burton. I hope that that will be understood by the public.
I want the Government to understand this message: people seek asylum from many places for many reasons. They might be victims of religious, social or political persecution. Perhaps they stood up against a structural adjustment programme in a third-world country, were deemed to be an enemy of that state and had to flee. The Secretary of State might call them economic migrants, but I call them people standing up for justice. They deserve our support and our recognition.
The Secretary of State says that the number of people seeking asylum is reducing throughout Europe, but that is because of the xenophobia of the right hon. Gentleman and others of his ilk in different countries. As a result, Europe accepts fewer asylum seekers than any other part of the world, and Britain admits proportionately less than most, if not all, other European states. Let us have a sense of humanity and, if nothing else, agree to amendment No. 24, so that there will be less destitution and more people who have fled from fear of persecution will at last be able to live in a place of safety.

Ms Lynne: What leads the Secretary of State to believe that amendment No. 24 will restore benefits during the appeal period? My understanding is that the Lords amendment was not voted on, so perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will answer that question.
The removal of benefits has caused great controversy in both Houses, which should fully debate any regulations before they are approved. If nothing else, that is a matter


of democratic accountability. We have heard from many hon. Members that asylum seekers face destitution because, unlike UK benefit claimants, they are not allowed to work for six months. What are they supposed to do?
It was wrong of the Government to smuggle through benefit changes in an amendment in the other place, because we are dealing with people's lives.

Mr. Lilley: The changes were not smuggled through.

Ms Lynne: The right hon. Gentleman may say that, but why did he not come to the House with another Bill after the court ruling? That way, we would have had the chance to debate the regulations fully, in Committee and through all the other stages.

Mr. Alton: My hon. Friend makes an important point about the processes of this Parliament. According to advice that we received today from my noble Friends Lord Lester of Herne Hill and Lady Williams of Crosby, because of the pell-mell way that the Bill has been rushed through, the UK may be in breach of the European convention on human rights. Our compliance with international law is being seriously questioned. If the Secretary of State had paused, the House would have had the chance to consider the country's international obligations.

Ms Lynne: I totally agree; that is why both Houses should have considered a proper Bill.
The Government's only concession has been that, if an applicant is successful, his benefits will be backdated. That does not go far enough. An asylum seeker might not have any family, friends or voluntary group to provide support. Even if he does, the initial determination takes an average of eight months. Figures produced in February this year show that 10,000 applicants have been waiting since 1991. How can family, friends or voluntary groups support an applicant for that length of time?
The right to claim asylum within three days is a minor concession for the Secretary of State to make. We are not asking much. I do not know whether Conservative Members have ever talked to torture victims. I talked to several when I was working with Amnesty International. They do not turn up at a port of entry and decide that they will tell all about what they have gone through. They are devastated about what they have gone through. They cannot speak about it. Some of them cannot speak about it for months on end. Only through counselling and various people trying to bring it out of them can they begin to talk about the horrors that they have undergone.
When I hear some Conservative Members, I wonder where they are coming from. They obviously have no idea what Opposition Members are talking about. We are talking about humanity. We are talking about decency. We are talking about taking into account the fact that genuine asylum seekers are terrified when they turn up at the port. They are terrified of authority and people in uniform. Does the Secretary of State expect all of them to say at the port of entry, "I have been tortured. Help me"? Most of them will not be able to do that. I know that some will, but many will not.
I sincerely urge all hon. Members on both sides of the House to support the Lords amendment for the sake of humanity and justice.

Mr. Peter Brooke: The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) quoted my local authority's situation. Unlike the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), who is currently out of the Chamber, I spoke on Second Reading, and specifically about inner-London local authorities, which would potentially be penalised by the draft benefit regulations.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), I abstained in the Division on the benefit regulations on 23 January. Unlike him, though, I have been driven towards the Government's position by the Lords' three-day amendment. I am now clear—I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department for replying to the fax that I sent him last week—that those who claim asylum in country bestow on themselves a more privileged immigration status than those who claim at the port of entry.
Like many hon. Members, I have had representations from the clergy—earlier, and recently. I understand the clergy overlooking falsehoods as somebody leaves the country of persecution, but I find it a little more difficult to understand the clergy overlooking falsehoods told at the port of entry here. Pragmatically, one of the strongest arguments for telling the truth is that it is a great deal easier to remember. Morally, I find falsehoods to improve one's immigration status, even if made unconsciously, distasteful.
I have heard Opposition Members' speeches on people who are terrified of those in authority when they arrive at the port of entry here. Nevertheless, such people have been able to present their case for entering the country in a manner that has proved persuasive to the immigration authorities.
On Second Reading, I alluded to unaccompanied refugee children and their effect on Westminster and its finances. Incidentally, those children have no difficulty at all in getting their story off pat. The Government did their best to unwoo me by their financial treatment of unaccompanied refugee children and local authorities on 26 June, but I agree that that is not a matter for my right hon. and hon. Friends the Ministers on the Front Bench at the moment.
The Government could, however, do much to ease the anxiety of Conservative Members who are uneasy on these matters by giving a commitment that part of the funds that they will save from the regulations will go towards voluntary organisations that will have to provide a safety net for those in trouble. I share the Government's concern to temper the numbers of those seeking asylum without justification, but the benefit of the doubt has also played a notable part in our national evolution.
The Government would carry these matters off with greater dignity if they provided reasonable funds to those voluntary organisations that have been and will be carrying a national burden of responsibility for us all. I shall listen closely to what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State says in winding up.

Ms Glenda Jackson: With the exception of the hon. Members for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) and for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), listening to the speeches


emanating from Conservative Members has been one of the most nauseating experiences I have had to endure in the four short years since I was elected to this place.
Not least was the lamentable contribution by the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), who began by wishing to lower the temperature of the debate, but succeeded only in lowering its tone. I refer to his disgraceful speech to make one specific point. Yet again, he made the spurious allegation that emanates from the Conservative Benches whenever the House debates this subject: that the Opposition are not concerned about bogus immigrants and asylum seekers or about reducing the costs to the public purse. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The fact that, not for the first time, the Secretary of State has significantly failed to give the House any detailed information as to the actual cost to the taxpayer engendered by bogus asylum seekers, or how many people have come off benefit lists since the changes to the system on 5 February, is irrelevant. We are not concerned with indulging anyone who makes bogus claims to be a refugee.
I find it deeply disturbing that the Government have convinced themselves—and the Secretary of State in particular—that the absolute, total and final definition of a bogus asylum seeker is a person who has failed to apply at the port of entry, and that anyone who applies in country, without any examination in a court of law or by immigration officials, has suddenly been defined—almost under the Government's writ—as a bogus asylum seeker. That is why I support the Lords amendment, not least in the name of humanity and compassion.
I should also make the representations that have been made to me by my constituents. The House cannot be unaware that there was yet another lobby urging hon. Members on both sides of the House to support the Lords amendment. My constituency of Hampstead and Highgate has a proud reputation of offering asylum to those who have had to flee from their countries. The hon. Member for South Staffordshire spoke of the Huguenots. My constituency offered sanctuary to people fleeing from that reign of terror in France. It has offered sanctuary to those fleeing oppressive and cruel regimes since records began.
The Secretary of State consistently argues that there is wide popular consensus throughout the country for the proposed changes as they affect asylum seekers. Ever since the changes to the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act were introduced, and even more since the changes in the benefit system as it applies to asylum seekers, my postbag has increased. My constituents are outraged by what their country is doing in their name. They are ashamed beyond belief that their reputation and the reputation of their country is being damaged by such a blinkered, cruel and appalling change to our system.
It is not a minority of people who feel a sense of deep disgust at what is being done in their name. There is total cross-community, cross-society consensus in my constituency over this long-drawn-out episode that is resulting in the genuine degradation of human beings who suddenly find themselves bereft of any financial support. Surely they have suffered enough.
During the debate on an earlier amendment, Conservative Members made representations—which the Minister of State, Home Office looked upon kindly—that

enforced abortions should be a reason for women to be allowed to apply for asylum here. I have a constituent who is here in London right now. She is seven months pregnant, yet she has been denied any financial support for herself and her unborn child, as she is deemed to be a bogus asylum seeker. It is shameful not only on the level of common humanity and decency, as the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham) said this evening in a particularly fine speech.
Hypocrisy is running rampant among Conservative Members, who are denying what I believe vast numbers of people want. This country's reputation as a beacon for what we claim to represent in this House—a commitment to justice and freedom for all—is being Tamished by Conservative Members.

Mr. Nick Raynsford: I am pleased to follow that fine speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson).
I shall not detain the House long, but it is right that it should be aware of the history that I shall briefly outline, involving someone currently living in my constituency who is a refugee, before we come to vote on this crucial amendment.
The case history involves a 31-year-old Kurdish refugee from Iraq. The case is familiar to the Secretary of State, as I mentioned it during the debate on 23 January, and to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, with whom I have corresponded about it. The person would, under the Government's rules, be described as a bogus refugee, but the House should be aware of the circumstances of his claim.
The man came to this country after 10 years of appalling terror at the hands of the Iraqi regime. In 1986, he was injured when shot from the air by a helicopter, after having fled to avoid being conscripted into the Iraqi army during the Iran-Iraq war. In 1988, he was arrested, blindfolded and subjected to repeated electric shocks to his legs and genitals. He was frequently suspended from the ceiling by one leg, abused and whipped, and this torture continued for two weeks. He was made to witness the torture of others, including watching one man having his fingernails pulled out and his feet set on fire. This other man was subsequently executed. The person who is now my constituent was released after five months' solitary confinement.
Three years later, when the Kurdish uprising took place after the Gulf war, my constituent joined the freedom fighters in their doomed rebellion. His brother, who was also involved in the rebellion, was one of 5,000 Kurds buried alive by the Iraqi forces after the rebellion had been put down. The person who is now my constituent was subsequently arrested, and was again taken to be tortured. He was again hoisted from the ceiling, and subjected to repeated electric shocks. He was kicked, beaten and forced to undergo water torture. He remained in prison for a year until March 1993, when he was once again released.
Last year, the security police visited my constituent's home while he was away, and his uncle warned him that, if he returned, his life would be in danger. At this point, he finally realised that he had to get out of Iraq to save his life. Leaving his wife and his four young children behind, he fled across the border into Turkey, from where he was assisted on to a flight to Britain. He arrived at


Heathrow late on a Friday evening, exhausted, frightened, confused and speaking no English. He was met by friends, who took him to stay with them over the weekend and, on the Monday, helped him to make an application for political asylum.
I do not believe that any hon. Member with a sense of humanity and decency could believe that that person was doing anything other than making a proper application for political asylum. The very fact that, under the Government's rules, he is to be classified as a bogus applicant because he delayed the application from the Friday evening to the Monday morning is an indication of just how profoundly wrong those rules are.
In my constituents's case, because he arrived in this country before 5 February, he is entitled to benefits. To that extent, he is lucky. If he had been denied benefits, who knows whether by now he would have been forced by destitution and starvation to give up, and possibly to return to the country where he suffered such appalling torture?
I believe that the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) spoke for the whole House when he said that, although we would not want to allow bogus applicants to benefit, it would be far worse if individual genuine asylum seekers were penalised unfairly as a result of the rules being brought in. The case that I have described undoubtedly reveals that truth. Had my constituent been denied benefits and forced to leave this country and return to a country where he had been tortured and where his life had been put at risk, he would have suffered an acute injustice, for which everyone in the House would have felt deeply ashamed. We owe it to him, to this country's sense of decency and to our common sense of humanity, to support the Lords amendment, which would ensure that that individual was treated as a genuine refugee.
Even the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) would probably accept that my constituent was a genuine refugee. It must be an indication of how profoundly wrong and shameful the regulations the Government propose are that someone in that position and with that history could be treated as a bogus refugee. We owe it to everyone to reject the Government's position and to support he Lords amendment.

Mr. Lilley: First, I must set right two concerns expressed by Opposition Members. The hon. Members for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham) and for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) suggested that someone arriving in this country seeking asylum is required to give details at the port of the suffering that they have undergone or their reasons for seeking asylum. All we ask is that, when such people are asked why they have come to this country, they should say that it is to seek asylum, not something totally different. There is no question of their being required to give details then and there. Of course it is right to be considerate to them if they have suffered in the ways that some hon. Members have rightly expressed concern about.
Secondly, the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) mentioned the problems faced by people whose spouse or head of household had made a claim before the regulations came in, but who were subsequently divorced or widowed. We have tabled amendments to the Bill to cope with that difficulty, so that problem is being set right.
On the substance of the debate, the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen made a weak attack on the Government's position—I suspect that it was deliberately weak—and defence of their amendments. It was deliberately weak, because the Opposition are two-faced on this issue. The politically correct face, directed towards their The Guardian reader clientele, has to express a degree of opposition to the changes that we have made, but as they recognise the concerns of ordinary voters, they want to keep quiet the cost implications of the changes that they would force.
That is why the speech of the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), offered no answers to key questions. There was no explanation of why in-country claims have fallen by two thirds since the benefit rules were changed. There was no explanation of why it is wrong to exclude from benefit 100 per cent. of those who say that they are not going to rely on benefits when they come to this country because they are here for some purpose other than to claim asylum, but right to exclude 90 per cent., because only 10 per cent. would be covered by the three-day rule.
That seems an arbitrary point at which to put the divide, and it would probably lead to far more people claiming within those few days to get the advantages of immigration status, as my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) explained.
We heard no explanation from the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman of why it is right to set a boundary anywhere other than at the point at which people are asked whether they are asylum seekers. There were no suggestions as to how the Opposition would speed up the process, given that they are opposed to all the changes that we are introducing in the Bill, which will speed up the processing of applications. Above all, there was no explanation of where the Opposition would find an extra £270 million to extend benefits indiscriminately to all those who claim in country and on appeal. I therefore have little respect for the Opposition's position, which was marked more by sanctimonious humbug than by serious argument.
I respect the arguments of my hon. Friends the Members for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) and for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley). My hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire was right to emphasise the importance of Britain remaining a sanctuary and a place of liberty. Like him, I warm to the points made by Dr. Perutz in his letter to The Times. However, as my hon. Friend pointed out, many of the people Dr. Perutz was talking about, and most of the people about whom we are concerned, come to Britain not primarily to receive benefits, but because they know that it is a sanctuary and a place of liberty. Conservative Members are determined that we should remain that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham recognised that there were reasons why people are, and have been, advised to claim in country rather than at the port. He suggested changing the rules to remove those reasons. He wanted immigration law changed, so that people got no extra rights to appeal against deportation, and social security law changed so that applicants would bear the burden of proof.
That would require immense changes to the amendments which I doubt could be done in the time available, even if the changes were feasible. I doubt, too, whether it could done in line with the Geneva convention and not still leave considerable loopholes for people to abuse the system. I will consider closely what my hon. Friend said, but I cannot pretend that it is likely to prove possible to do what he suggested.
I was grateful for the powerful support of my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South for the measure. At an early stage, he rightly expressed concern about the impact of concentrations of asylum seekers in his constituency, and we endeavoured to respond to that concern in respect of local authorities. Of course I shall keep his points under review, but he is right to recognise that the Government have tried to achieve our desire to allow this country to be a place of refuge for those who genuinely come to seek asylum, without indiscriminately making benefits available in a costly way.
I hope that the House will join us in rejecting Labour's amendment and supporting the changes that the Government have introduced, to make this a sensible and targeted way to help people who want to come to Britain to seek asylum.

Question put, That the amendment to the Lords
amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 295, Noes 274.

Division No. 199]
[9.37 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)


Aitken, Fit Hon Jonathan
Budgen, Nicholas


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Burns, Simon


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Burt, Alistair


Amess, David
Butcher, John


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Butler, Peter


Arbuthnot, James
Butterfill, John


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Carlisle, John (Luton North)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)


Ashby, David
Carrington, Matthew


Aspinwall, Jack
Carttiss, Michael


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Cash, William


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Chapman, Sir Sydney


Baldry, Tony
Clappison, James


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Batiste, Spencer
Coe, Sebastian


Bellingham, Henry
Colvin, Michael


Bendall, Vivian
Congdon, David


Beresford, Sir Paul
Conway, Derek


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Body, Sr Richard
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Bonsor, Sr Nicholas
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Booth, Hartley
Couchman, James


Boswell, Tim
Cran, James


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Bowis, John
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Brandreth, Gyles
Day, Stephen


Brazier, Julian
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Bright, Sir Graham
Devlin, Tim


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Browning, Mrs Angela
Dover, Den





Duncan, Alan
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Duncan Smith, Iain
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Dunn, Bob
Key, Robert


Durant, Sir Anthony
King, Rt Hon Tom


Dykes, Hugh
Kirkhope, Timothy


Eggar, Rt Hon Tim
Knapman, Roger


Elletson, Harold
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Knight Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Knox, Sir David


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Evennett, David
Lamont Rt Hon Norman


Faber, David
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Fabricant, Michael
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Legg, Barry


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Leigh, Edward


Fishburn, Dudley
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark


Forman, Nigel
Lidington, David


Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Forth, Eric
Lord, Michael


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)
MacGregor, Fit Hon John


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
MacKay, Andrew


French, Douglas
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Fry, Sir Peter
McLoughlin, Patrick


Gale, Roger
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Gallie, Phil
Madel, Sir David


Gardiner, Sir George
Maitland, Lady Olga


Garnier, Edward
Major, Rt Hon John


Gill, Christopher
Malone, Gerald


Gillan, Cheryl
Mans, Keith


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Marland, Paul


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Marlow, Tony


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gorst, Sir John
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Grant Sir A (SW Cambs)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mates, Michael


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Grylls, Sir Michael
Merchant Piers


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Mills, Iain


Hague, Rt Hon William
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Moate, Sir Roger


Hampson, Dr Keith
Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector


Hannam, Sir John
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hargreaves, Andrew
Moss, Malcolm


Haselhurst, Sir Alan
Needham, Fit Hon Richard


Hawkins, Nick
Nelson, Anthony


Hawksley, Warren
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hayes, Jerry
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Heald, Oliver
Nicholls, Patrick


Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Norris, Steve


Hendry, Charles
Oppenheim, Phillip


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Page, Richard


Hicks, Sir Robert
Paice, James


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Horam, John
Pawsey, James


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Pickles, Eric


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hunter, Andrew
Rathbone, Tim


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Jack, Michael
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Richards, Rod


Jenkin, Bernard
Riddick, Graham


Jessel, Toby
Robathan, Andrew


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)






Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Thomason, Roy


Ross, William (E Londonderry)
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Sackville, Tom
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexfyhth)


Shaw, David (Dover)
Tracey, Richard


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Tredinnick, David


Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)
Trend, Michael


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Trotter, Neville


Sims, Sir Roger
Twinn, Dr Ian


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Viggers, Peter


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Soames, Nicholas
Walden, George


Speed, Sir Keith
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Spencer, Sir Derek
Waller, Gary


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Ward, John


Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)
Wardle, Charies (Bexhill)


Spink, Dr Robert
Waterson, Nigel


Spring, Richard
Watts, John


Sproat, Iain
Wells, Bowen


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Whitney, Ray


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Whittingdale, John


Steen, Anthony
Widdecombe, Ann


Stephen, Michael
Wiggin, Sir Jerry



Wilkinson, John


Stern, Michael
Willetts, David


Stewart, Allan
Wilshire, David


Streeter, Gary
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Sumberg, David
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fid)


Sweeney, Walter
Wolfson, Mark


Sykes, John
Wood, Timothy


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Yeo, Tim


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)



Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Mr. Michael Bates and Mr. Richard Ottaway.


Temple-Morris, Peter





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Callaghan, Jim


Adams, Mrs Irene
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Ainger, Nick
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Allen, Graham
Campbell-Savours, D N


Alton, David
Cann, Jamie


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Chidgey, David


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Chisholm, Malcolm


Armstrong, Hilary
Church, Judith


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Clapham, Michael


Ashton, Joe
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)


Austin-Walker, John
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Clelland, David


Barnes, Harry
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Barron, Kevin
Coffey, Ann


Battle, John
Cohen, Harry


Bayley, Hugh
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Beith, Rt Hon AJ
Corbett, Robin


Bell, Stuart
Corbyn, Jeremy


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Corston, Jean


Bennett, Andrew F
Cousins, Jim


Benton, Joe
Cox, Tom


Bermingham, Gerald
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Berry, Roger
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John


Betts, Clive
Cunningham, Roseanna


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Dafis, Cynog


Blunkett, David
Dalyell, Tam


Boateng, Paul
Darling, Alistair


Bradley, Keith
Davidson, Ian


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)


Byers, Stephen
Denham, John


Cabom, Richard
Dewar, Donald





Dixon, Don
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)


Dobson, Frank
Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)


Donohoe, Brian H
Khabra, Piara S


Dowd, Jim
Kilfoyle, Peter


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Kirkwood, Archy


Eagle, Ms Angela
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Eastham, Ken
Lewis, Terry


Etherington, Bill
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Livingstone, Ken


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Fatchett, Derek
Llwyd, Elfyn


Faulds, Andrew
Loyden, Eddie


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Lynne, Ms Liz


Fisher, Mark
McAllion, John


Flynn, Paul
McAvoy, Thomas


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
McCartney, Ian


Foster, Don (Bath)
Macdonald, Calum


Fraser, John
McFall, John


Fyfe, Maria
McKelvey, William


Galbraith, Sam
Mackinlay, Andrew


Galloway, George
McLeish, Henry


Gapes, Mike
Madennan, Robert


Garrett, John
McMaster, Gordon


George, Bruce
McNamara, Kevin


Gerrard, Neil
MacShane, Denis


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
McWilliam, John


Godman, Dr Norman A
Madden, Max


Godsiff, Roger
Maddock, Diana


Gotding, Mrs Uin
Mahon, Alice


Gordon, Mildred
Mandelson, Peter


Graham, Thomas
Marek, Dr John


Grant Bemie (Tottenham)
Martin, Michael J (Springbum)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Martlew, Eric


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Maxton, John


Grocott, Bruce
Meacher, Michael


Gunnell, John
Meale, Alan


Hain, Peter
Michael, Alun


Hall, Mike
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Hanson, David
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Hardy, Peter
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Harrnan, Ms Harriet
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Harvey, Nick
Morgan, Rhodri


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)


Henderson, Doug
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yandley)


Heppell, John
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Mowlam, Marjorie


Hinchliffe, David
Mudie, George


Hodge, Margaret
Mullin, Chris


Hoey, Kate
Murphy, Paul


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Home Robertson, John
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Hood, Jimmy
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hoon, Geoffrey
Olner, Bill


Howarth, George (Knowsley North,
O'Neill, Martin


Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hoyle, Doug
Parry, Robert


Hughes, Kevin (DoncasterN)
Pearson, Ian


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Pickthall, Colin


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Pike, Peter L


Hutton, John
Pope, Greg


lllsley, Eric
Powell, Sir Ray (Ogmore)


Ingram, Adam
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jackson, Helen (Shefld, H)
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Jamieson, David
Primarolo, Dawn


Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)
Purchase, Ken


Johnston, Sir Russell
Quin, Ms Joyce


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Radice, Giles


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Raynsford, Nick


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Reid, Dr John


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Rendel, David


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Jowell, Tessa
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Rogers, Allan


Keen, Alan
Rooker, Jeff






Rooney, Terry
Thumham, Peter


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Timms, Stephen


Rowlands, Ted
Tipping, Paddy


Ruddock, Joan
Trickett, Jon


Salmond, Alex
Turner, Dennis


Sedgemore, Brian
Tyler, Paul


Sheerman, Barry
Vaz, Keith


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Walley, Joan


Short, Clare
Wareing, Robert N


Simpson, Alan
Watson, Mike


Skinner, Dennis
Welsh, Andrew


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Wicks, Malcolm


Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)
Wigley, Dafydd


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Snape, Peter
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Soley, Clive
Wilson, Brian


Spearing, Nigel
Winnick, David


Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)
Wise, Audrey


Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Worthington, Tony


Steinberg, Gerry
Wray, Jimmy


Stevenson, George
Wright, Dr Tony


Straw, Jack
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Sutcliffe, Gerry



Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Tellers for the Noes:


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Mr. Eric Clarke and Mr. John Cummings.


Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Amendment (b) to the Lords amendment agreed to.

Amendment (c) to the Lords amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment, as amended.—[Mr. Burns.]

Question put.:—

The House divided: Ayes 297, Noes 270.

Division No. 200]
[9.51 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Browning, Mrs Angela


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)


Amess, David
Budgen, Nicholas


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Burns, Simon


Arbuthnot, James
Burt, Alistair


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Butcher, John


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Butler, Peter


Ashby, David
Butterfill, John


Aspinwall, Jack
Carlisle, John (Luton North)


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Canington, Matthew


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Carttiss, Michael


Baldry, Tony
Cash, William


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Chapman, Sir Sydney


Bates, Michael
Churchill, Mr


Batiste, Spencer
Clappison, James


Bellingham, Henry
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)


Bendall, Vivian
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Beresford, Sir Paul
Coe, Sebastian


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Colvin, Michael


Body, Sir Richard
Congden, David


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Conway, Derek


Booth, Hartley
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Boswell, Tim
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Couchman, James


Bowis, John
Cran, James


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Brazier, Julian
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Bright, Sir Graham
Davies, Quentjn (Stamford)





Davis, David (Boothferry)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Day, Stephen
Jack, Michael


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Devlin, Tim
Jenkin, Bernard


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Jessel, Toby


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Dover, Den
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Duncan, Alan
Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)


Duncan Smith, Iain
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dunn, Bob
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Durant, Sir Anthony
Key, Robert


Dykes, Hugh
King, Rt Hon Tom


Eggar, Rt Hon Tim
Kirkhope, Timothy


Elletson, Harold
Knapman, Roger


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Knight Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Knox, Sir David


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Evennett, David
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Faber, David
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Fabricant, Michael
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Field, Barry
Legg, Barry


Fishbum, Dudley
Leigh, Edward


Forman, Nigel
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark


Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)
Lidington, David


Forth, Eric
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Lord, Michael


Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


French, Douglas
MacKay, Andrew


Fry, Sir Peter
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Gale, Roger
McLoughlin, Patrick


Gallie, Phil
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Gardiner, Sir George
Madel, Sir David


Garnier, Edward
Maitland, Lady Olga


Gill, Christopher
Major, Rt Hon John


Gillan, Cheryl
Malone, Gerald


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Mans, Keith


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Marland, Paul


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Marlow, Tony


Gorst, Sir John
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Mates, Michael


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Grylls, Sir Michael
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Merchant, Piers


Hague, Rt Hon William
Mills, Iain


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Moate, Sir Roger


Hannam, Sir John
Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector


Hargreaves, Andrew
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Haselhurst, Sir Alan
Moss, Malcolm


Hawkins, Nick
Needham, Rt Hon Richard


Hawksley, Warren
Nelson, Anthony


Hayes, Jerry
Neubert, Sir Michael


Heald, Oliver
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Nicholls, Patrick


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hendry, Charles
Norris, Steve


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hicks, Sir Robert
Ottaway, Richard


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Page, Richard


Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)
Paice, James


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Horam, John
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Pattje, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Pawsey, James


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Pickles, Eric


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensboume)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hunter, Andrew
Powell, William (Corby)






Rathbone, Tim
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Richards, Rod
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Riddick, Graham
Temple-Morris, Peter


Robathan, Andrew
Thomason, Roy


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Ross, William (E Londonderry)
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Tracey, Richard


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Tredinnick, David


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Trend, Michael


Sackville, Tom
Trotter, Neville


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Twinn, Dr Ian


Shaw, David (Dover)
Viggers, Peter


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)
Walden, George


Sims, Sir Roger
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Waller, Gary


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Ward, John


Soames, Nicholas
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Speed, Sir Keith
Waterson, Nigel


Spencer, Sir Derek
Watts, John


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Whitney, Ray



Whittingdale, John


Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)
Widdecombe, Ann


Spink, Dr Robert
Wggin, Sir Jerry


Spring, Richard
Wlkinson, John


Sproat, Iain
Willetts, David


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Wilshire, David


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Steen, Anthony
Winterton, Nicholas (Maccfld)


Stephen, Michael
Wolfson, Mark


Stem, Michael
Wood, Timothy


Stewart, Allan
Yeo, Tim


Streeter, Gary
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Sumberg, David



Sweeney, Walter
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sykes, John
Mr. Gyles Brandreth and Mr. Bowen Wells.


Tapsell, Sir Peter





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Adams, Mrs Irene
Byers, Stephen


Ainger, Nick
Caborn, Richard


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Callaghan, Jim


Allen, Graham
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Alton, David
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Anderson, Ms Janet (Hos'dale)
Campbell-Savours, D N


Armstrong, Hilary
Cann, Jamie


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Chidgey, David


Ashton, Joe
Chisholm, Malcolm


Austin-Walker, John
Church, Judith


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Clapham, Michael


Barnes, Harry
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)


Barron, Kevin
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Battle, John
Clelland, David


Bayley, Hugh
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Coffey, Ann


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Cohen, Harry


Bell, Stuart
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Bennett, Andrew F
Corbett Robin


Benton, Joe
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bermingham, Gerald
Corston, Jean


Berry, Roger
Cousins, Jim


Betts, Clive
Cox, Tom


Blunkett David
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Boateng, Paul
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John


Bradley, Keith
Cunningham, Roseanna


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dafis, Cynog


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Dafyell, Tam


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Darling, Alistair





Davidson, Ian
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Jowell, Tessa


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Denham, John
Keen, Alan


Dewar, Donald
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)


Dixon, Don
Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)


Dobson, Frank
Khabra, Piara S


Donohoe, Brian H
Kilfoyle, Peter


Dowd, Jim
Kirkwood, Archy


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Eagle, Ms Angela
Lewis, Terry


Eastham, Ken
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Etherington, Bill
Livingstone, Ken


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Llwyd, Elfyn


Fatchett, Derek
Loyden, Eddie


Faulds, Andrew
Lynne, Ms Liz


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
McAllion, John


Fisher, Mark
McAvoy, Thomas


Flynn, Paul
McCartney, Ian


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Macdonald, Calum


Foster, Don (Bath)
McFall, John


Fraser, John
McKefvey, William


Fyfe, Maria
Mackinlay, Andrew


Galbraith, Sam
McLeish, Henry


Galloway, George
McMaster, Gordon


Gapes, Mike
McNamara, Kevin


Garrett, John
MacShane, Denis


George, Bruce
McWilliam, John


Gerrard, Neil
Madden, Max


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Maddock, Diana


Godman, Dr Norman A
Mahon, Alice


Godsiff, Roger
Mandelson, Peter


Golding, Mrs Llin
Marek, Dr John


Gordon, Mildred
Martin, Michael J (Springburn)


Graham, Thomas
Martlew, Eric


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Maxton, John


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Meacher, Michael


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Meale, Alan


Grocott, Bruce
Michael, Alun


Gunnell, John
Mtehie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Hain, Peter
Mtehie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Hall, Mike
Mitchell, Austin (Gf Grimsby)


Hanson, David
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hardy, Peter
Morgan, Rhodri


Harman, Ms Harriet
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)


Harvey, Nick
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Henderson, Doug
Mowlam, Marjorie


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Mudie, George


Hinchliffe, David
Mullin, Chris


Hodge, Margaret
Murphy, Paul


Hoey, Kate
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Home Robertson, John
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hood, Jimmy
Olner, Bill


Hoon, Geoffrey
O'Neill, Martin


Howarth, George (Knowsley North)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)
Parry, Robert


Hoyle, Doug
Pearson, Ian


Hughes, Kevin (DoncasterN)
Pickthall, Colin


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Pike, Peter L


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Pope, Greg


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Powell, Sir Ray (Ogmore)


Hutton, John
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)


Illsley, Eric
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Ingram, Adam
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Primaroto, Dawn


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Purchase, Ken


Jamieson, David
Quin, Ms Joyce


Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)
Radice, Giles


Johnston, Sir Russell
Raynsford, Nick


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Reid, Dr John


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Rendel, David






Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Suteliffe, Gerry


Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Rogers, Allan
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Rooker, Jeff
Tipping, Paddy


Rooney, Terry
Trickett, Jon


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Turner, Dennis


Rowlands, Ted
Tyler, Paul


Ruddock, Joan
Vaz, Keith


Salmond, Alex
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Sedgemore, Brian
Walley, Joan


Sheerman, Barry
Wareing, Robert N


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Watson, Mike


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Welsh, Andrew


Short, Clare
Wicks, Malcolm


Simpson, Alan
Wigley, Dafydd



Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Skinner, Dennis
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Wilson, Brian


Smith, Chris (Isf'ton S & F'sbury)
Winnick, David


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Wise, Audrey


Snape, Peter
Worthington, Tony


Soley, Clive
Wray, Jimmy


Spearing, Nigel
Wright, Dr Tony


Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Steel, Rt Hon Sir David



Steinberg, Gerry
Tellers for the Noes:


Stevenson, George
Mr. Eric Clarke and Mr. John Cummings.


Straw, Jack

Question accordingly agreed to.

It being after Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business),
That, at this day's sitting, consideration of Lords Amendments to the Asylum and Immigration Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour. —[Mr. McLoughlin.]

Question agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 25 to 27 agreed to.

New clause

Lords amendment: No. 28, before schedule 1, to insert the following new schedule—

SCHEDULE— MODIFICATIONS OF SOCIAL SECURITY REGULATIONS

PART I

SOCIAL SECURITY (PERSONS FROM ABROAD) MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS REGULATIONS 1996

Preliminary

1. In this Part of this Schedule—

(a) "the 1996 Regulations" means the Social Security (Persons from Abroad) Miscellaneous Amendments Regulations 1996; and
(b) expressions which are used in the 1996 Regulations have the same meanings as in those Regulations.

Income support

2. In regulation 8 of the 1996 Regulations (amendment of the Income Support Regulations)—

(a) paragraph (2) so far as relating to the sub—paragraph added to regulation 21(3) of the Income Support Regulations as sub—paragraph (j); and
(b) paragraph (3)(c) and (d),

shall have effect as if the 1996 Regulations had been made, and had come into force, on the day on which this Act is passed.

Housing benefit

3. In regulation 7 of the 1996 Regulations (amendment of regulation 7A of the Housing Benefit Regulations)—

(a) paragraph (a) so far as relating to the sub—paragraph added to regulation 7A(4) of the Housing Benefit Regulations as sub—paragraph (g);
(b) paragraph (b) so far as relating to sub—paragraphs (a) and (b) of the paragraph substituted for regulation 7A(5) of those Regulations; and
(c) paragraph (c),

shall have effect as if the 1996 Regulations had been made, and had come into force, on the day on which this Act is passed.

Council tax benefit

4. In regulation 3 of the 1996 Regulations (amendment of regulation 4A of the Council Tax Benefit Regulations)—

(a) paragraph (a) so far as relating to the sub—paragraph added to regulation 4A(4) of the Council Tax Benefit Regulations as sub—paragraph (g);
(b) paragraph (b) so far as relating to sub—paragraphs (a) and (b) of the paragraph substituted for regulation 4A(5) of those Regulations; and
(c) paragraph (c),

shall have effect as if the 1996 Regulations had been made, and had come into force, on the day on which this Act is passed.

General

5.—(I) Subject to sub—paragraph (2) below, any person who is excluded from entitlement to income support, housing benefit or council tax benefit by any of the provisions which are modified by the preceding provisions of this Part of this Schedule—

(a) shall not be entitled to the benefit for any period beginning on or after the day on which this Act is passed; and
(b) shall not be entitled to the benefit for any period beginning on or after 5th February 1996 except on a claim made before the day on which this Act is passed, or an application made before that day for the review of a decision.

(2) Nothing in this paragraph shall apply in any case where a person is entitled to the benefit in question either—

(a) by virtue of regulation 12(1) of the 1996 Regulations (saving); or
(b) by virtue of regulations making such provision as is mentioned in section (Saving for social security regulations))(2) of this Act.

PART II

SOCIAL SECURITY (PERSONS FROM ABROAD) (MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) REGULATIONS (NORTHERN IRELAND) 1996

Preliminary

6. In this Part of this Schedule "the 1996 Regulations" means the Social Security (Persons from Abroad) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1996.

Income support

7. In regulation 4 of the 1996 Regulations (amendment of the Income Support (General) Regulations)—

(a) paragraph (2) so far as relating to the paragraph added to regulation 21(3) of the Income Support (General) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1987 as paragraph (j); and
(b) paragraph (3)(b),

shall have effect as if the 1996 Regulations had been made, and had come into operation, on the day on which this Act is passed.

Housing benefit

8. In regulation 5 of the 1996 Regulations (amendment of the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations)—

(a) paragraph (a) so far as relating to the sub—paragraph added to regulation 7A(4) of the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1987 as sub-paragraph (g);
(b) paragraph (b) so far as relating to sub—paragraphs (a) and (b) of the paragraph substituted for regulation 7A(5) of those Regulations; and
(c) paragraph (c),

shall have effect as if the 1996 Regulations had been made, and had come into operation, on the day on which this Act is passed

General

9.—(I) Subject to sub—paragraph (2) below, any person who is excluded from entitlement to income support or housing benefit by any of the provisions which are modified by the preceding provisions of this Part of this Schedule—

(a) shall not be entitled to the benefit for any period beginning on or after the day on which this Act is passed; and
(b) shall not be entitled to the benefit for any period beginning on or after 5th February 1996 except on a claim made before the day on which this Act is passed, or an application made before that day for the review of a decision.

(2) Nothing in this paragraph shall apply in any case where a person is entitled to the benefit in question either—

(a) by virtue of regulation 11(1) of the 1996 Regulations (saving); or
(b) by virtue of regulations making such provision as is mentioned in section (Saving for social security regulations)(2) of this Act.")

Amendments made to the proposed Lords amendment:

(a), in line 46, at end insert—

`. Regulation 12(1) of the 1996 Regulations (saving) shall have effect as if after the words "shall continue to have effect" there were inserted the words "(both as regards him and as regards persons who are members of his family at the coming into force of these Regulations)".'

(b), in line 91, at end insert—

`. Regulation 11(1) of the 1996 Regulations (saving) shall have effect as if after the words "shall have effect" there were inserted the words "(both as regards him and as regards persons who are members of his family at the coming into operation of these Regulations)".'—[Mr. Burns.]

Lords amendment, as amended, agreed to.[Special Entry.]

Lords amendments Nos. 29 to 36 agreed to.[Some with Special Entry.]

Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their amendments to the Bill: Mr. Simon Burns, Mr. Doug Henderson, Mr. David Lidington, Mr. Jack Straw and. Miss Ann Widdecombe; Three to be the quorum of the Committee.—[Mr. Burns.]

To withdraw immediately.

Reasons for disagreeing to certain Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

Assisted Places

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mrs. Cheryl Gillan): I beg to move,
That the draft Education (Assisted Places) (Amendment) Regulations 1996, which were laid before this House on 20th June, be approved.
As hon. Members know, in 1981, we introduced the assisted places scheme for the prime purpose of opening up educational opportunities for able children from less well-off families. The Government are committed to encouraging high standards in education, wherever they are to be found. In stark contrast, the Labour party would remove those opportunities from thousands of children. Its stated intention to abolish the assisted places scheme would make independent schools the preserve solely of the rich. Labour, in its well-known way, would push away the education ladder from those talented children. The Government believe in extending choice as widely as possible, but Labour believes in choice only for the few, such as many of its Front Benchers. Many Opposition Members have received the benefit of a private education, but Labour would deny those benefits to all but a privileged few.
Since 1981, almost 80,000 children in England and Wales have benefited from the scheme. There are now well over 30,000 pupils in the scheme, and four out of 10 pupils are fully assisted because their family income is below the threshold of £9,572 a year, and eight out of 10 are from families whose incomes are below the national average of £18,540 a year.
We want to widen access to assisted places for parents in every part of the country. That is why we are doubling the scheme, to give twice as many children the opportunity to benefit. At present, 5,900 entry places are available each year in 300 schools in England and Wales. From September, almost 10,000 places will be available in some 370 schools. All the schools in the scheme have been carefully selected on the basis of their records of academic achievement.
Recent independent research by the London school of economics confirms that assisted places pupils achieve better examination results than their counterparts of similar ability in maintained schools. That independent evidence shows that assisted places pupils were entered for significantly more A and AS-levels than their counterparts in the maintained sector. Assisted places pupils achieved higher total points scores than pupils in the maintained sector and their average points score per examination entry was higher than that for maintained sector pupils. Overall, the benefit of an assisted place is between 3.2 and 6.2 A-level points. Translated into grades, the advantage is between 1.5 and 3 A-level grades over all subjects taken.

Mr. Barry Jones: Will the Minister give way?

Mrs. Gillan: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will bear with me. I am trying to go through my speech as fast as possible and I do not intend to allow any interventions.
As hon. Members know, this is the annual laying of the regulations on the assisted places scheme and, from debates in previous years, hon. Members will also know


that the amendment regulations have a specific and straightforward purpose. They simply update the principal regulations, the Education (Assisted Places) Regulations 1995. Essentially, they implement the annual uprating of the parental contribution tables, setting out the amount that parents must pay towards a child's assisted place at a participating independent school in the coming year. If approved, the amended regulations will come into force on 25 August.
Regulation 3 of the draft regulations permits schools to offer an assisted place to a child from the beginning of his or her compulsory education, thus extending the ladder of opportunity for many more able children. We are making places available for the first time to children in the junior and preparatory departments of some of our best independent schools. For the sake of brevity and so as not to take up too much time, I commend the regulations to the House.

Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: The Minister omitted to mention that children do better in schools that are beneficiaries of the assisted places scheme not least because, unlike many of our schools, they have smaller classes and resources such as books and roofs that do not leak. If the Minister needs any evidence of that, she has only to look at this year's report by Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools, which shows in painful detail what happens in state schools.
Each year we have this debate and each year the same arguments are put. This debate is perhaps the most significant since the assisted places scheme was introduced by the Education Act 1980. It was a device to underpin the newly independent former direct grant schools. Subsequently, there was a steady increase in the number of places, although they have remained reasonably constant since 1987–88. Take-up has also increased, although 13 per cent. of the places that are available still go begging. However, the increase in cost speaks eloquently. While the cost of the scheme has increased by 3,000 per cent. since its inception, the number of places has increased by only 600 per cent., which is a telling sign of educational inflation in the independent sector.
In his wisdom, our misguided Prime Minister has announced plans to double the number of places, notwithstanding the failure to take up the slack in the scheme from the start. His proposals dovetail with his other plans to establish secondary moderns in every town. To coin a phrase: de pluribus ad minores—[Interruption.] That is a fitting epitaph for this most divisive of Governments. By such means, he hopes to put his seal on the differences between the Labour and Conservative parties. The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) shows his ignorance of Latin. A rough translation of the phrase is, "From the many to the few."
In short, the proposals are a party political manoeuvre rather than a serious attempt to deal with the educational divides in our country. They enable independent schools to choose from among our brightest youngsters, bringing money and talent within their walls. We should remember that the closure rate of independent schools was halved after the introduction of the assisted places scheme.

Perhaps there were so many closures because so many parents realised—as the Secretary of State for Wales reportedly has, according to the weekend newspapers—that good comprehensive school education made private education a waste of money.
However, the Government set out to delude parents further, and the scheme was their answer. Now we have a further development of that illusion. Schools that were formerly deemed to be ineligible will now be able to jump on to the gravy train, joining schools that receive up to half their fees in income from the assisted places scheme. No doubt that will be seen by Conservative Members as an expansion of choice and diversity, and the Under-Secretary of State said as much today. If that is so, why did the leaflet entitled "Assisted Places at Independent Schools: A Brief Guide for Parents" say:
Schools choose the pupils themselves … Most schools will need your child to take an entrance exam and go to an interview.
Schools make the choice, not parents—or certainly not working-class parents, according to Professor Tony Edwards of Newcastle university, who reckons that only 10 per cent. of assisted places scheme scholars are from a working-class background.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman admits that the scheme is becoming increasingly popular and that it will double in size. He says that, according to his policies, £240 million will be saved if his party abolishes the scheme. However, has he forgotten that it will cost £183 million to send those children to the state system, thereby saving only a net £57 million?

Mr. Kilfoyle: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me an opportunity to point out that, this year, 86,000 children entered the education system without any extra funding and that, next year, another 60,000 will enter it. I should like to ask him or the Minister whether the Chancellor will make available the same type of funding to those 60,000 pupils that is provided to those on the assisted places scheme. The answer is that they will not receive the same funding, because the Government have a two-tier view of education. What is good enough for the private system is not good enough for the state system.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: The hon. Gentleman referred to the distinction between the state system and the independent sector, and earlier in his speech he used the word "divisive". Can he tell us whether, when the Labour party, or if the Labour party—[HON. MEMBERS: "When or if?"] Should the Labour party have the opportunity to abolish the assisted places scheme, can he tell us how it proposes to break down the barriers between the state and the independent sectors, as he clearly believes should be done?

Mr. Kilfoyle: We shall do it by giving half a million infants a far better education than they currently get. The answer is as simple as that.
Perhaps the Minister will tell the House what has been done to investigate the fraud allegations made in The Sunday Times on 12 November 1995. When the Minister trots out her statistics, will she confirm that fewer than 1 per cent. of applications are checked and whether, in fact,


schools check applications for irregularities? Will she explain how possession of large amounts of capital is disregarded in the award of places, and how a de facto step-parent is considered in assessing a family's income? Does she agree with the claim made by David Jewell, of Haileybury school, that 20 per cent. of assisted places scheme applications are—to use his euphemism—"incorrect"?
The Sunday Times article cited the Freeman family. They had saved £30,000 for school fees, only to discover to their delight that, despite having their own building business, they qualified for an assisted place for their son. As Mrs. Freeman confided to the newspaper,
on paper we are not high-income earners.
Christopher Marley was pleased that he could invest his nest egg in his business after his son, Simon, received an assisted place. Mr. Marley said:
the world is not a fair place.
How true that is for children in overcrowded, under-resourced and dilapidated state school classrooms.
The Under-Secretary undoubtedly believes that the APS has merit. Perhaps she agrees with the headmaster of Ampleforth, which is new to the scheme and who apparently believes that it will reinforce his links with his north Yorkshire community. How wrong can one be? He will select 25 "bright boys"—to use his words—for the college, which I assure him will divide the community, and that is not something I associate with the Benedictines. Other schools will, like Ampleforth, seek to replace diminishing returns from private and service applicants with assisted places. Although the assisted places scheme does not match the huge fees of many independent schemes, it is better than empty places.
Fees paid under the APS are nevertheless generous, compared with the money allocated to state schools, for which the Government have steadily reduced funding. The Library estimates that the average cost of an assisted place in 1993–94 was £4,110, compared with £2,105 for 11 to 15-year-olds and £3,050 for over-16s in the maintained sector. Curiously, the Under-Secretary, in a written answer to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) on 23 November 1995, put the same figures at £3,700, £2,600 and £3,600 respectively. Inflation apart, I rely far more on the numeracy of the Library than on that of the hon. Lady. Perhaps the Minister will also explain how, in 1993–94, 33,139 places were available—of which 29,747 or 97 per cent. were taken up, yet the Budget estimate of £101.6 million was the same as the outturn. Was there an unforeseen leap in the cost of places taken up? How does the hon. Lady account for such remarkable figures?
Will the Minister explain the increasing proportion of places concentrated in schools that are already heavily dependent on the assisted places scheme? Does she agree that if the Prime Minister's fantasy became reality, many of those schools would need virtually to be wholly populated with APS pupils? What would that mean for the Prime Minister's other pie-in-the-sky plan for a grammar school in every town? There is not a cat's chance in hell of those cloud cuckoo land commitments being realised.
There is no overwhelming demand among our constituents for such concepts, which bear no relation to the educational needs of the vast majority of pupils. 'They are political gimmicks and show little understanding of

educational priorities or of the national mood, which is why Labour is pledged to wind down the assisted places scheme. Cracks are showing even among the scheme's erstwhile supporters. Preparatory schools excluded from the APS's latest extension are calling foul play. Recipients who perceive the election of a Labour Government are looking for a new accommodation, given our implacable opposition to the scheme. Everyone in the world of education recognises our case for redirecting the APS's finances, to reduce class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds to 30 pupils or fewer.

Mr. James Pawsey: How much will that cost?

Mr. Kilfoyle: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I will give him chapter, verse and line.
At January this year, 1.3 million primary school children were in classes of 31 or more pupils. Over the past five years, class sizes have increased by 40 per cent. in the maintained sector—another five years of Toryism would add half a million to the figure to which I referred earlier, which would be intolerable.

Mrs. Gillan: The Labour party has said that it will phase out the scheme over time. If that was done, the saving in the first year would be £5 million, which is equivalent to the cost of 200 primary teachers. How does the hon. Gentleman expect Labour to keep its pledge, because that is equivalent to one tenth of the pupils in the classes to which he refers?

Mr. Kilfoyle: I will answer the hon. Lady directly. The National Foundation for Educational Research has costed our proposals at £68 million for England. That is not a Government statistic plucked out of the air. It is based on real local education authority data and actual experimentation, as in Staffordshire. By the way, it is revealing that we have had to readjust last year's figure of £60 million to £68 million because class sizes have increased so much under the Tories.
We believe that, by phasing out the assisted places scheme, freeing up to £23 million a year, we shall meet out target for England over three years. That will show our concern for the many whose educational start has suffered and been made much more difficult by culpable Government neglect. The Government insist on displaying that neglect in the proposals, with Ministers incapable of reading the signs of the times. I remind the Minister of what Nye Bevan once said of another misguided soul:
He is a man walking backwards with his face to the future.
We are walking forwards, well fitted for the future. I ask the House to vote for the future of all our children and to reject the proposals.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I represent a constituency with very deep deprivation among tens of thousands of people, profound poverty, minimal youth facilities, the second highest youth unemployment of any constituency in England and Wales and the highest youth unemployment of all English constituencies.
The schools in my constituency are often in dire difficulty, yet three schools are scooping up millions of pounds of taxpayers' money through the assisted places scheme. Located in my deprived and impoverished inner-city constituency are three independent schools substantially and lavishly funded through the scheme: Manchester grammar school, Manchester high school for girls and William Hulme's grammar school. During the past six years, the assisted places scheme has provided those three schools with £10.819 million. In the current year, the scheme is providing them with £2.128 million. That compares with the budget, this year, for the 39 local authority schools in the state sector in my constituency of £23,957,931.
There are 14,205 pupils in the state sector; the average amount available a head for their education is £1,685.58. The amount available for each of the 661 pupils who are beneficiaries of the assisted places scheme is £3,219.36—almost exactly double what is available to the vast mass of children in my constituency.
Hon. Members might say that 661 of my constituents are benefiting, but of course they are not. Of the 262 assisted places pupils at Manchester grammar school, 23 live in my constituency. Of the 179 assisted places pupils at Manchester high school for girls, 33 live in my constituency. Of the 220 assisted places pupils at William Hulme's grammar school, 29 live in my constituency. So, at those schools in the heart of the inner city, 85 of my constituents are benefiting from the assisted places scheme-85 compared with the 14,205 of my constituents who attend all the other 39 state schools, yet the parents of children at state schools are paying through their taxes for 85 of my constituents whose children have been selected to attend those three schools.
Let me make it clear that I have nothing against the three schools. I was invited to William Hulme's grammar school when Princess Anne opened a laboratory there, I was invited to Manchester high school for girls, and I was even invited to Manchester grammar school.

Mr. Michael Lord: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kaufman: No. I shall act in the same way as the Minister. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) is a great deal more courteous than I am, so he did not do as the Minister did. I shall behave as the Minister did.

Mr. Lord: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Madam Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman has made it quite clear that he is not giving way.

Mr. Kaufman: I assisted, and was thanked by, Manchester high school for girls when it was libelled by the Government's league tables and contemplated taking legal action against the Government.
Although those three schools are in my constituency, they are not part of my constituency. They have next to no relationship with the people living around them and they have little knowledge of the poverty that surrounds them. They have affluent premises and beautiful playing

fields while Spurley Hey high school, for example, is yearning in vain to get its hands on a filled-in clay pit next to the school.
The assisted places scheme is subsidising the cost of those three schools with money that could pay for two extra teachers in each local authority school and could have done so for the past six years.
I have here a 14-page list of work that is necessary to restore the state schools in my constituency to a fit condition. It would cost £3,475,000 to carry out all the work that is required in the 39 schools in my constituency, yet this year they have been allocated only £263,000.
The list includes security and anti-vandalism work, and health and safety work. There have been requests for safety film to glazing and, believe it or not, work needs to be carried out—for which there is insufficient money—to prevent an outbreak of legionella in 13 schools. Outstanding major repair work is required in many. The money that has been spent on a small number of children who do not live in my constituency could have been used to provide decent accommodation for 14,000 children in my constituency.
The work—for which the Government have the money, but refuse to make it available—does not involve trimmings or fripperies; it includes roofing, the provision of play areas, safety services to a nursery climbing frame, security doors, fire prevention, security fencing, intruder alarms, fire alarms, dry rot repairs, waterproofing and asbestos removal. There is no money for floor renewal, the renewal of urinals and toilet cubicles, anti-vandal measures and playground resurfacing.
Children in certain schools in my constituency—such as Gorton Brook school, a special needs school, and Stanley Grove nursery school—have been at risk of their lives because of the lack of a few thousand pounds to resurface the playgrounds, but the Government are spending £2 million this year on handouts to privileged schools that are oases of affluence in a deprived constituency.
The other Saturday, we had a street party on the Anson estate—an area of great poverty—because of the need for a youth centre. There is an abandoned shop that we could use as a youth centre in an area of poverty, high unemployment and high crime, but we do not have the money to do that. A fraction of the money being voted tonight could solve the problems of that area.
In a parliamentary answer, the Government have told me that there will be 50 more assisted places at the three schools. On past form, seven of my constituents' children will qualify, and £160,000 will be spent on the extra places. With that £160,000, Manchester city council could pay for all the security and anti-vandalism work that is needed in all the state schools in my constituency. It could pay for all the health and safety work, and all the anti-legionella work in my constituency. Instead of seven of my constituents' children benefiting, thousands could.
I received a letter from Mrs. W. Bradbury on behalf of the governing body of Alma Park primary school in my constituency. She said:
As both parents and Governors, we are appalled to realise that year by year the environment in which our children have to learn and develop academically, socially and morally is sinking into disrepute through lack of investment. Their main resources, teachers, NNEBs and special support workers are regularly being reduced,


nation-wide in order to meet budgets. Teachers who are doing an excellent job are starved of resources and put under excessive pressure due to continuous changes in legislation.
We feel we must express our concern and that of all Governors that through your approach"—
meaning the Government—
and attitude to educational funding many of the current generation of children will have no future. Class sizes will increase, resources will be reduced, the school meals services will reduce and our schools become areas of dereliction that give no one pride in themselves or their community.
The children of my constituents are as talented, eager and bright as all other children who are benefiting from the system, and they have the right to their chance. The Government's priorities, as demonstrated by this scheme and by the regulations, are twisted and harmful. It is my duty to vote against the Government tonight and, in doing so, I shall have the support of my constituents.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak briefly in the debate. Having heard the interesting remarks of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and having taught at Manchester grammar school for five years between 1960 and 1965, I would like to follow his remarks about education in Manchester. I understand the figures that he has given and his argument against the assisted places scheme.
Before I address those matters, let me remind the right hon. Member for Gorton that Manchester grammar school—in the days when I was teaching there—was a direct grant grammar school. It was, admittedly, highly selective at that time, and many hon. Members here may oppose that. It was so selective that some 2,000 young boys used to come to sit an examination, and only 200 used to get in. But socially it was totally non-selective. There was no question of fees at that time, and poor children came from all over the Manchester area. The right hon. Gentleman was right—children came from a wide area, but from all walks of life. The right hon. Gentleman will agree, because I was there and I know exactly what happened. The pupils came from as far away as Oldham, and even Southport, at that time.
Then, Manchester grammar school, as a direct grant state school, served the very pupils it cannot serve now because it is independent, and that is because a Labour Government abolished direct grant schools. The right hon. Member for Gorton is right; fees now have to be paid if a pupil from Manchester or anywhere else wants to attend Manchester grammar school. It is still a fine school, and a selective school, but it is now a fee-paying school, and that is why he made the speech that he made. It is a pity that he did not cast his mind back to the history of that great school, which I was lucky to serve for five years. It was certainly a privilege to be there. I think that he will agree that it is a fine school and one that we can be proud of.
I promised to be brief. All that I wanted to say about the regulations is that I have taught at schools other than Manchester grammar and have seen the benefits of the assisted places scheme. I will not deal with all the figures that have been bandied about. I am suspicious of bureaucracy and figures. I do not believe any of this nonsense, whether from the Government or from the Opposition, about £118 million—I have read the brief—or £263 million. It is all a load of hogwash.
The assisted places scheme is a success for the young people who are on it because the schools that they go to are good schools, with good teachers, who work hard outside school hours and it is a quality—[Interruption.] This is not a party point. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) is laughing, but he knows that it is not a party point.
The quality of the teaching in those schools has led to the results that we have read about in recent reports. It is all too sad that the Labour party has abandoned young people from poorer families for old-fashioned reasons, because it is anti the independent sector. The Labour party has pledged to abolish the assisted places scheme. I think that it has made a mistake—it has misjudged because it is removing known benefits to pupils from less well-off families for pie in the sky.

Mr. Don Foster: As I have made clear in the House on a number of occasions in speeches on this issue, the Liberal Democrat party has no antipathy to the independent school sector, which is a valuable educational resource and one that we want to be made available to a much wider community. Indeed, as I have also said on a number of occasions, we welcome many of the areas of co-operation that exist between the state and the independent sectors. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about the buts?"' I will come to those in a minute, if hon. Members can contain themselves.
For example, we welcome the joint membership of trade unions and professional associations, the joint in-service activities that take place, the shared use of premises, and even, on some occasions, the shared teaching. All those are examples of mutual co-operation for mutual benefit.
Conservative Members will be pleased to know that we have gone further. Recently, we made it clear that we are not in favour of removing charitable status from independent schools. We would prefer to achieve a level playing field, by including local education authority schools in the charitable status. We have also rejected the introduction of value added tax on independent school fees, which was first proposed by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett).
But—Conservative Members have been waiting for this—as I have said several times, we are not convinced that the assisted places scheme offers the best basis for co-operation between the state and independent sectors. We do not believe that it is the best way to extend mutual co-operation for mutual benefit.
After all, whatever other arguments might be used in the Chamber, the scheme is hardly the basis for wide-scale co-operation when it deals with less than 1 per cent. of the relevant school-age population. How can a scheme that spends large sums of public money on so few people be the best way to forge effective partnerships between the state and independent sectors?
There can be little or no justification for using public funds to prop up independent schools that would otherwise be unable to attract sufficient students—and so survive—without the assisted places scheme. It is interesting to note how the fees of several independent schools involved in the scheme have risen by considerably more than the average rate of inflation. One wonders


whether such rises result from the almost certain knowledge that they will be covered by funding from the scheme.
It is also worrying that so few independent schools involved in the assisted places scheme are inspected. Questions from the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) have recently revealed that it is unlikely that more than three independent schools will be inspected by the Office for Standards in Education over the next 12 months. It must be of great concern that the Government do not require independent schools involved in the scheme, using state school funding money, to make available scores on key stage 3 standard assessment tasks. It is difficult to know whether we are getting value for money from that use of public funds.
There is little evidence that the assisted places scheme provides value for money, and we must ask whether the money involved could not be used to greater effect. We have some evidence that the scheme is missing its intended target. For example, research shows that 40 per cent. of parents with children on the scheme earn more than £13,000. As the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) pointed out, recent evidence shows that only about 10 per cent. of the parents of children on the scheme come from manual backgrounds.
Two years ago, research showed that about 50 per cent. of parents with children on the scheme had attended independent schools. I doubt whether much has changed in the intervening two years. I would welcome a contradiction from the Minister of the evidence of two years ago that few people from ethnic minority backgrounds had received places. For those reasons and others that have been mentioned by other hon. Members, I am not convinced that the scheme is the best use of what will always be limited education resources.
We have already heard from Conservative Members that the assisted places scheme is popular. It is hardly surprising that it is increasingly popular in some quarters. After all, many parents know that their local education authority schools are being starved of cash. Class sizes are rising; there are shortages of books and equipment; buildings are crumbling. Parents know that all those factors depress educational achievement.
Of course parents want their children to have the benefits of smaller class sizes, more books and equipment, and better-maintained buildings. The question is whether we should find ways of investing more in our education service. I hope that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) will join my party in calling for a significant increase in investment in the education service.
For those reasons, I am not convinced that the assisted places scheme is the best way to forge closer co-operation and make the best use of the important resource that is the independent school sector. I remind the House that it was the Prime Minister who told us that we had good state sector provision for the ablest pupils. It was the Prime Minister who said that it was those other, perhaps less able, pupils to whom we should be directing our attention. The assisted places scheme does not help us to do what even the Prime Minister says we should be doing.

Mr. David Jamieson: Each year we have this debate, which is extremely useful in that it shows the differences between Opposition and Conservative Members on education. The hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson), in his short but lively contribution to the debate, said many things with which Opposition Members agree. He said that good teaching and good, well-resourced schools with bright children got good results. That was a statement of the extremely obvious. The difference between us is that the Government consider that only 1 per cent. or fewer of children should receive that good education.
The assisted places scheme emphasises the education of the few at the expense of the many. It is an admission of 17 years of failure if, as the Minister said, the Government believe that bright children can be educated only in independent schools. Deregulation of independent schools and their inspection has removed any accountability for taxpayers' money.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) said, when local education authority budgets were settled for this year, they exposed a massive shortfall of funding. Many hon. Members, not only Opposition Members, will have beaten a path to the Minister to make representations on behalf of the local authority in their area. They saw class sizes rising, buildings crumbling and books and equipment shortages. Yet the only new initiative to come from the lips of the Prime Minister was a pledge to put £100 million more into the assisted places scheme.
Even the Government cannot claim that the assisted places scheme represents value for money. As has been demonstrated by other hon. Members, a place in an independent school, even considering the capital costs and the other costs involved in running the LEA, costs between one and a half and three times as much as a place in a maintained school. So even comparing like with like, costs in an independent school are far greater.
When the then Minister summed up this debate last year, he said
Above all, the assisted places scheme offers good value for money. It produces better GCSE and A-level results than the maintained sector".—[Official Report, 3 July 1995; Vol. 263, c. 110.]
The assisted places scheme is largely intended to cream off bright children from maintained schools, so is it surprising that independent schools perform better? The Minister made a conclusion of remarkable insight last year. He was telling us that taller people can reach higher shelves.
So are we surprised that we are paying so much more for assisted places or that the Government are not making proper checks that we are getting value for money? If the Government were genuine in their attempts to assist the brightest children, they would tackle the issue not just for the few but for the majority of children in all our schools. If the Minister was making a sincere effort to assist able and gifted children, she would insist that all schools in the maintained sector had a policy for the gifted, that proper and differentiated work went on in our schools, and that primary and secondary schools in the maintained sector had the necessary modern equipment—information technology and access to the Internet—so that those children could benefit from a varied and wide education. But instead the Government are ploughing £200 million of taxpayers' money into the independent sector.
We recognise diversity and choice, but we say that it should be available to all children within every school, not just to a few. However, we also recognise that £1 extra spent in one school is £1 less spent in another.
The most extraordinary feature of the assisted places scheme is that the scheme has been undersubscribed for nine years out of 14. Spending on the scheme has not reached the figure that the Government projected in nine years out of 14. Parents are leaving the places empty because they are unenthusiastic about the scheme, yet the Government have decided to double the amount of money spent on it.
Some of the 355 independent schools currently in the scheme are highly dependent on taxpayers' money. In fact, if the scheme were extended further, they could almost become private state-funded schools, but the difference is that the education that they supply costs more and no one is accountable to the taxpayer for the money spent. If the Government have their way, the taxpayer will spend more than £200 million on the assisted places scheme. More than £100 million is spent on the service boarding scheme and the funding of other schemes means that about £350 million of taxpayers' money is paid to independent schools. Yet those schools do not follow the national curriculum or conduct standard assessment tests. They do not have to give the same type of detailed information to parents as maintained schools nor are they subjected to full Ofsted reports.
Maintained schools have to be inspected every four years and it was the original ambition of the Government that independent schools should be inspected every seven years. However, the chief inspector of schools told me recently that only three independent schools, out of nearly 2,300, will be inspected next year. I shall assist the Minister with the arithmetic and tell her that, on that basis, it will take just over 700 years to inspect all the independent schools. Yet when the chief inspector of schools appeared before the Education and Employment Committee, he admitted that the education in many of the independent schools was less than good. In answer to one of my questions, he said:
We have found some independent schools where the education is less than miraculous.
Despite that the Government do not insist that those schools, which receive substantial amounts of taxpayers' money, are examined in the same way as maintained schools.
I have staled that independent schools are more expensive. The one simple reason why education in independent schools is more expensive than in maintained schools is that most of a school's budget is spent on teachers' salaries and independent schools have considerably better teacher-pupil ratios than maintained schools. In short, independent schools have smaller classes and smaller classes get better results. The House need not take my word for it, because it can take the word of David Woodhead, the national director of the Independent Schools Information Service. In ISIS's magazine, he wrote:
In any survey of parents' reasons for choosing independent schools, smaller classes are mentioned amongst the most influential factors … teachers in independent schools have to teach, on average, about 60 per cent. of the number of pupils of their maintained sector equivalents.
Most tellingly, he also says in the same article:

If smaller classes are good enough for independent schools, they are good enough for other types of schools, too.
I totally subscribe to that view. If we are going to find resources for smaller classes, we should find the resources for all schools.
Like parents, we reject the Government's illogical, ill-founded notion that there is no connection between class size and children's academic performance. That is demonstrated by the money that the Government are spending on the assisted places scheme. The Labour party will replace the assisted places scheme: we will give a real chance to all pupils, whether bright or not, by using the money that is currently allocated to the scheme to reduce class sizes in early-years education. Labour Members will reflect that intention in our votes tonight.

Mr. Kilfoyle: With the leave of the House. I had not intended to speak again until I listened to the contribution by the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson). I commend the contributions by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). I also agreed with many of the remarks by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster).
The hon. Member for Norwich, North viewed the past with rose-coloured glasses. I also attended a direct grant school that was fine in some respects. However, at that school—which is now independent, like so many others—I learnt about the class divisions in society. It was not the same sort of school that the hon. Gentleman recalls from the 1950s and 1960s. I returned to speak to the old boys and I was booed and cheered in equal measure when I reminded them of the lessons that I learnt—which were not the valuable ones that one often derives from education.
I returned also to my primary school and I pointed out that the values that have stood me in good stead throughout life were the ones that I learnt there rather than at the direct grant school. I disabuse anyone who has experience of a direct grant school of the notion that there is good and bad in every school. It is ridiculous to argue that what obtained in those halcyon days would have the same effect in this day and age.
I put to the Minister three points arising from the debate. First, will she assure the House that the 60,000 extra children who enter the system next year will receive the same funding as the Government propose for those who will be advantaged under the direct grant scheme? Secondly, will she assure us that the scheme is not a subsidy for private schools that might not exist otherwise? Lastly, will she take seriously the allegations concerning fraud within the system?
It is all very well to talk, as we did earlier, about people who allegedly defraud the benefit system while seeking asylum in this country. I want to know how seriously the Government will take the claim by David Jewell from Haileybury school that 20 per cent. of applications are fraudulent. Apart from conducting a cursory audit, what will the Government do about that?

Mrs. Gillan: With the leave of the House I shall reply to the debate. I assure Opposition Members that any doubts that they may have about the assisted places


scheme are not shared by the many parents whose children have benefited, and will continue to benefit, from it under this and the next Conservative Government.
Opposition Members claim that the assisted places scheme costs much more per pupil than maintained schooling and that abolishing the scheme would save substantial sums of money. They are quite wrong. In fact, in some parts of the country assisted places are cheaper than maintained schooling. In many inner-London local education authorities, last year's standard spending assessment unit cost for pupils aged 11 to 15 years was well above the national average assisted place cost of £3,700. For example, in Tower Hamlets it was more than £4,000; in Southwark, nearly £4,100; in Hackney, more than £4,300; and in Lambeth, nearly £4,500. Those four LEAs were among the 10 worst performing LEAs in the country in terms of the percentage of pupils who attained five or more GCSE grades A to C. We can contrast that with the benefits derived from the assisted places scheme.
I draw the attention of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) to a letter that appeared in The Mail on Sunday last weekend. It was from a grandmother, who wrote:
It disgusts me that the Labour Party intends to scrap assisted places in the top schools for poorer children if they get back in power. My grand-daughter will be one of the so-called 'minority' affected".
She continued:
This would give a gifted and hard-working child the start in life that she deserves.
Despite the insistence of Tony Blair and some of his shadow cabinet on selective schooling for their own children, they seem determined to ruin the chances for the offspring of less privileged parents.
That is the truth behind the Labour party's stance tonight.
The hon. Member for Walton asked where the children who are in the assisted places scheme come from. I am extremely pleased to tell him that 80 per cent. come from C1, C2 and DE families—lower middle class, skilled working class and unskilled working class. The average cost of an assisted place is £3,700. If money were everything, why was the cost of a pupil's education at Hackney Downs—a school that the Government had to close—£6,489?
I am happy to take up the hon. Gentleman's point, but there is absolutely no evidence of widespread abuse of the scheme. Steps are already in place to detect and prevent fraudulent applications by parents for assisted places. If the hon. Gentleman knows of anybody with evidence of fraud, he should bring it immediately to my Department. Indeed, checks are carried out by my Department every year.
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), in an elegant speech, complained about the education in his area. Capital allocations in his area are the responsibility of the local education authority. I suggest that he asks the LEA to look at surplus places in the Manchester area. There must be savings to be made there.
My excellent Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson), in a lively contribution, made the point that the Labour party had destroyed direct grant schools.

That was an act of vandalism for which nobody will forgive the Labour party. Nobody can spin a line to my hon. Friend. He knows a success when he sees one, and he knows that the assisted places scheme is a great success.
The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) was right when he said to me earlier that he would be making a speech that I may have heard before. I certainly had heard most of it before. I can reassure him that schools are inspected on a five to eight-year cycle. If he wants evidence of value for money, I refer him to the detailed research produced by the London school of economics, which proves the success of the scheme.
While listening to the speech by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), I heard him argue for the abolition of independent schools. He certainly has no love for them. Perhaps this is the real Labour party and the hidden agenda is the abolition of independent schools: tomorrow, assisted places; the day after, independent schools. He said that the scheme was not taken up. This September, almost 100 per cent. of all the places on the scheme will be taken up. Overall, the take-up is 95 per cent.
The hon. Gentleman wanted assurances that the scheme was not propping up the independent sector, for which he has no love. On average, 14 per cent. of pupils go to independent schools. He made a point about pupil-teacher ratios. I have already said that the cost of Hackney Downs was two and a half times the national cost of a maintained secondary place, but on pupil-teacher ratios, the ratio was 1:8. I rest my case.
The Conservative party supports independent schools and supports assisted places, which have provided a ladder of opportunity to able pupils from poor families. The assisted places scheme is safe in the hands of the Conservative party. I commend the regulations to the House.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 269, Noes 230.

Division No. 201]
[11.09 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Bowis, John


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Brandreth, Gyles


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Brazier, Julian


Alton, David
Bright Sir Graham


Amess, David
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)


Arbuthnot, James
Browning, Mrs Angela


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)


Ashby, David
Budgen, Nicholas


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Burns, Simon


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Burt, Alistair


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Butcher, John


Baldry, Tony
Butler, Peter


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Butterfill, John


Bates, Michael
Carlisle, John (Luton North)


Batiste, Spencer
Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)


Bellingham, Henry
Carrington, Matthew


Bendall, VMan
Carrtiss, Michael


Beresford, Sir Paul
Cash, William


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Chapman, Sir Sydney


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Churchill, Mr


Booth, Hartley
Clappison, James


Boswell, Tim
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Coe, Sebastian


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Colvin, Michael






Congdon, David
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Conway, Derek
Hunter, Andrew


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Jack, Michael


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Jenkin, Bernard


Couchman, James
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Cran, James
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Key, Robert


Davis, David (Boothferry)
King, Rt Hon Tom


Day, Stephen
Kirkhope, Timothy


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Devlin, Tim
Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Knox, Sir David


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Dover, Den
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Duncan, Alan
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Duncan Smith, Iain
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Dunn, Bob
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Durant, Sir Anthony
Legg, Barry


Dykes, Hugh
Leigh, Edward


Eggar, Rt Hon Tim
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark


Elletson, Harold
Lidington, David


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lord, Michael


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Evennett, David
MacKay, Andrew


Faber, David
Maclean, Ftt Hon David


Fabricant, Michael
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fenner, Dame Peggy
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Madel, Sir David


Fishburn, Dudley
Maitland, Lady Olga


Forman, Nigel
Malone, Gerald


Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)
Mans, Keith


Forth, Eric
Marland, Paul


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Marshall, Sir Michael (Amndel)


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


French, Douglas
Mates, Michael


Fry, Sir Peter
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Gale, Roger
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Gallie, Phil
Merchant, Piers


Garnier, Edward
Mills, Iain


Gill, Christopher
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Gillan, Cheryl
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Moate, Sir Roger


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Gorst, Sir John
Moss, Malcolm


Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)
Needham, Rt Hon Richard


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Nelson, Anthony


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Neubert, Sir Michael


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Nicholls, Patrick


Hague, Rt Hon William
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald
Norris, Steve


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hampson, Dr Keith
Paice, James


Hannam, Sir John
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Hargreaves, Andrew
Patten, Rt Hon John


Haselhurst, Sir Alan
Pawsey, James


Hawkins, Nick
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hawksley, Warren
Pickles, Eric


Hayes, Jerry
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Heald, Oliver
Potter, David (Waveney)


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hendry, Charles
Powell, William (Corby)


Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)
Rathbone, Tim


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Horam, John
Richards, Rod


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Riddick, Graham


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Robatnan, Andrew


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)





Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Thomason, Roy


Sackville, Tom
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Shaw, David (Dover)
Tracey, Richard


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Tredinnick, David


Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)
Trend, Michael


Shersby, Sir Michael
Twinn, Dr Ian


Sims, Sir Roger
Viggers, Peter


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Waller, Gary


Soames, Nicholas
Ward, John


Spencer, Sir Derek
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Waterson, Nigel


Spfeer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)
Watts, John


Spink, Dr Robert
Wells, Bowen


Spring Richard
Whitney, Ray



Whittjngdale, John


Sproat, Iain
Widdecombe, Ann


Squire, Robin (Homchurch)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Wilkinson, John


Stephen, Michael
Willetts, David


Stem, Michael
Wilshire, David


Stewart, Allan
Wolfson, Mark


Streeter, Gary
Wood, Timothy


Sumberg, David
Yeo, Tim


Sweeney, Walter
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Sykes, John



Tapsell, Sir Peter
Tellers for the Ayes:


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Mr. Richard Ottaway and Mr. Roger Knapman.


Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)





NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Coffey, Ann


Ainger, Nick
Cohen, Harry


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Corbyn, Jeremy


Armstrong, Hilary
Corston, Jean


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Cousins, Jim


Ashton, Joe
Cox, Tom


Austin-Walker, John
Cummings, John


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Barnes, Harry
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John


Barron, Kevin
Dafis, Cynog


Battle, John
Dafyell, Tam


Bayley, Hugh
Darling, Alistair


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Davidson, Ian


Berth, Rt Hon A J
Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)


Bell, Stuart
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Bermingham, Gerald
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Betts, Clive
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)


Blunkett, David
Denham, John


Boateng, Paul
Dewar, Donald


Bradley, Keith
Dixon, Don


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Donohoe, Brian H


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Dowd, Jim


Byers, Stephen
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Caborn, Richard
Eagle, Ms Angela


Callaghan, Jim
Eastham, Ken


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Etherington, Bill


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Fatchett, Derek


Campbell-Savours, D N
Faulds, Andrew


Cann, Jamie
Flynn, Paul


Chidgey, David
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Chisholm, Malcolm
Foster, Don (Bath)


Clapham, Michael
Fraser, John


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Fyfe, Maria


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Galbraith, Sam


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Gapes, Mike


Clelland, David
George, Bruce


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Gerrard, Neil






Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Godman, Dr Norman A
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Godsiff, Roger
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Jowell, Tessa


Graham, Thomas
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Keen, Alan


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Khabra, Piara S


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Kilfoyle, Peter


Grocott, Bruce
Kirkwood, Archy


Gunnell, John
Lewis, Terry


Hain, Peter
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Hall, Mike
Livingstone, Ken


Hanson, David
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Hardy, Peter
Llwyd, Elfyn


Harman, Ms Harriet
Loyden, Eddie


Harvey, Nick
McAllion, John


Henderson, Doug
McAvoy, Thomas


Heppell, John
McCartney, Ian


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Macdonald, Calum


Hinchliffe, David
McFall, John


Hodge, Margaret
McKelvey, William


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Home Robertson, John
McLeish, Henry


Hood, Jimmy
McMaster, Gordon


Hoon, Geoffrey
McNamara, Kevin


Howarth, George (Knowsley North)
MacShane, Denis


Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)
McWilliam, John


Hoyle, Doug
Madden, Max


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Maddock, Diana


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Mahon, Alice


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Mandelson, Peter


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Marek, Dr John


Hutton, John
Martin, Michael J (Springburn)


Illsley, Eric
Martlew, Eric


Ingram, Adam
Maxton, John


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Meacher, Michael


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Meale, Alan


Jamieson, David
Michael, Alun


Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Moonie, Dr Lewis





Morgan, Rhodri
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Mudie, George
Snape, Peter


Mullin, Chris
Soley, Clive


Murphy, Paul
Spearing, Nigel


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Steinberg, Gerry


O'Hara, Edward
Stevenson, George


Olner, Bill
Straw, Jack


O'Neill, Martin
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Pearson, Ian
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Pickthall, Colin
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Pike, Peter L
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Pope, Greg
Trickett, Jon


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Turner, Dennis


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Tyler, Paul


Primarolo, Dawn
Vaz, Keith


Quin Ms.Joyce
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Radice, Giles
Walley, Joan


Raynsford, Nick
Wareing, Robert N


Reid, Dr John
Watson, Mike



Wicks, Malcolm


Rendel, David
Wigley, Dafydd


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Rogers, Allan
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Rooker, Jeff
Wilson, Brian


Rooney, Terry
Winnick, David


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Worthington, Tony


Rowlands, Ted
Wray, Jimmy


Sedgemore, Brian
Wright, Dr Tony


Sheerman, Barry



Short, Clare
Tellers for the Noes:


Simpson, Alan
Mrs. Jane Kennedy and Mrs. Bridget Prentice.


Skinner, Dennis

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Education (Assisted Places) (Amendment) Regulations 1996, which were laid before this House on 20th June, be approved.

Contracting Out

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): I beg to move,
That the draft Local Authorities (Contracting Out of Tax Billing, Collection and Enforcement Functions) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 20th June, be approved.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): I understand that, with this, it will be convenient to discuss the following motion:
That the draft Local Authorities (Contracting Out of Investment Functions) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 25th June, be approved.

Sir Paul Beresford: The orders will allow local authorities greater freedom to use the private sector for specific service provision, if they so wish. The Local Government Act 1972 allows an authority to delegate most of its functions to a committee or officer. However, without a specific power, functions may not be delegated further to any other person. As a result, this could exclude those functions from being exercised by a contractor.
The orders will help to address that situation in two ways. The first is concerned with the contracting out of local taxation billing, collection and enforcement functions and the second with local authority investment functions. The aim is to clarify for local authorities their discretion to use a contractor for service provision in those specific areas.
The Local Authorities (Contracting Out of Tax Billing, Collection and Enforcement Functions) Order is intended to clarify an authority's powers to contract out its billing and its collection and enforcement functions on council tax, community charge and national non-domestic rates. The order will enable most of the statutory functions relating to billing and to the collection and enforcement of local taxes to be delegated to a contractor, if the authority so wishes.
There are, of course, some exceptions. Local authorities have certain powers to instigate firm action against those who do not meet their legal obligations. Those actions include applications for the committal of a debtor and the imposition of civil penalties—powers that should remain the exclusive territory of authorities. Therefore, the order does not allow the delegation of those powers to a third party. Decisions to reject an individual's appeal against council tax liability and to pass it to a valuation tribunal, and whether discretionary relief should be applied on non-domestic rating, will also remain the responsibility of the local authority.
The second order will clarify a local authority's powers to contract out functions relating to investment. The order will set in place some good practice principles. It relates to a range of investments, but they must be approved investments under the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. Approved investments have been used for the investment of local authority funds over the years, and they provide a sound basis for the order.
Contractors will have to be suitably qualified. They must follow proper investment and accounting practices and comply with local authority instructions. They will not be able directly to sub-delegate decisions on functions. While the order does not prohibit a contractor from

making an arrangement for the exercise of functions by another person, I have insisted that, where such an arrangement is made, the other person must be approved by the local authority directly. Contractors will be obliged to make three-monthly reports to the authority and to provide any information that the authority may request.
The orders will regularise and clarify the current situation and will provide a helpful addition to local authorities' existing powers. They are aimed at helping authorities achieve the very best and most efficient service provision and management of their resources on behalf of local taxpayers. I commend them to the House.

Ms Hilary Armstrong: The Opposition do not oppose the orders, because they enable local authorities to contract out but do not force them to do so. With that level of discretion, authorities will be able to make decisions according to what they think will provide the best value to local taxpayers.
However, several issues arise out of the orders, which I ask the Minister to consider. We are anxious that the Government do not use them as a means to compulsion via the back door. Compulsion has not worked in local government, and the most effective relationships between local government and the private sector have been established when they have been entered into on a voluntary basis of partnership. That is how we think matters should proceed in future, so that local government's public ethos can operate alongside the private sector's efficiency and market-driven efforts.
I am not a sceptical person, Madam Deputy Speaker, as I am sure that you know. However, one wonders what relationship there is, in particular, between the contracting out of the tax billing, collection and enforcement functions and other proposals made by the Minister several weeks ago and a current consultation process. Those consultative proposals advocate the extension of the proportion of financial services that local authorities will be forced to put out to tender from 35 to 65 per cent. Some authorities would have no choice but to contract out the tax billing, collection and enforcement functions if those proposals are approved.
Those who are cynical or sceptical might regard the proposals as only appearing to be voluntary, whereas, in the long or medium term, the Minister might make them compulsory by means of the proposals that he announced several weeks ago, forcing local authorities to contract out those functions. The draft order was put out to consultation in 1994, and we are now in 1996. Perhaps something that will happen before 1997 may have caused the Government to lay the orders now.
As I said, I am not a cynical person, and I am sure that an impending general election has nothing whatever to do with the Minister's decision. However, while we are not opposing the order, because we believe that local authorities should be able to secure the best value for local people by using the mechanisms that are most appropriate to local circumstances, we oppose the extension of compulsion for the reasons that I have mentioned. Local governments must be able to bring together the important stakeholders in any area to ensure that they are working effectively in response to the needs and aspirations of local people. Compulsion does not enable that close working relationship. Local government wants to develop


real partnerships and the means of working with the private and voluntary sectors. Compulsion is stopping good, healthy relationships developing.
As to confidentiality and public responsibility, vast amounts of information will be available to the contractors who bill council tax and bring enforcement proceedings in the case of non-payment—and it offers the potential for abuse. It is crucial that the Government make it clear that that activity must be kept separate from any others of a company bidding for a contract. Large utility companies are already seeking mergers with others, and may want to know whether an individual is a good payer. They could obtain that information from council tax collection, which could affect their decision to make other services available to the individual in question.
Such a practice would not be legal or proper; nor would it uphold the standards that we expect of publicly accountable local government officers. I hope that the Government will take steps to ensure that confidential financial information obtained by a contractor will not be used for any other purpose without the individual clearly giving permission.
What comments has the Minister sought from organisations interested in confidentiality and related matters? Has he received advice from the Office of Data Protection? We must be confident that the public's right to privacy is properly protected.
Contractors should be expected to comply with a national code of practice. The public are vulnerable, and we want an assurance that any organisation performing the functions in question will respect the sensitivities that will be involved and will use its powers responsibly. That means the provision of appropriate and accessible collection points, methods of payment most appropriate to the individual and giving advice on meeting payments to people on low incomes. I note from the order that a contractor will be responsible for collecting the liabilities of a deceased person. When such a duty is not performed carefully, incredible offence and distress can be caused to the bereaved family of the deceased from whose estate the council tax is sought. How will the Government ensure that the sensitivity for which a public body can be held accountable will be observed?
The contracting out of investment functions is a slightly different matter. Local authorities have been asking for such a measure for some time. Four to five years ago, the Government questioned whether local authorities had the power to delegate investment management on superannuation funds. They subsequently legislated to clarify local authority powers in relation to the delegation of investment management on superannuation funds but did not do anything about the delegation of everyday general fund cash management. Many local authorities assumed that they had such general powers already, but it became clear that some people questioned it. Local authorities have therefore been asking for some time for the matter to be clarified and for specific powers to delegate cash management. In many senses, it is therefore welcome that the Department is now responding to such requests.
Having issued the draft order, the Government found that some authorities that they assumed would be covered by it, such as joint police, fire and passenger transport

authorities, were not because of the definition of a local authority in the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. The Government will have to address that omission at some stage. It seems somewhat perverse that, having worked out that those authorities were not covered by the order, the Government have not subsequently sought a means to ensure that they will be. I understand that the Department has stated that it has no intention of changing the legislation any further unless another opportunity comes along. I would have thought that the Government could have found a way in which to ensure that the order covered joint bodies as well as local authorities as defined under the Act.
I hope that the Government are able to give some assurances, especially on the confidentiality of tax billing and the fact they will not be able to introduce the white collar proposals this side of a general election, which is how I read the situation. I also hope that they are prepared to consider the case for contracting out investment functions that is being made by the joint authorities that cover police, fire and transport.

Mr. David Wilshire: I shall not detain the House for long, because I am only too well aware that doing so late at night when the Opposition have said that they will not divide the House is the best way in which to make oneself deeply unpopular in this place.
The orders warrant a small amount of comment because they would allow councils to choose who is best able to carry out two more functions. Indeed, the orders could be used by some councils to invite competitive bids to test the market. My 11 years as a councillor persuaded me that choice, market testing and the use of contractors ensure the best possible service for local people and the lowest cost for local taxpayers—if the activity is fair and honest. That is a big if.
Events in my county of Surrey, which represent at best sloppy management and at worst criminal conspiracies, make me want to speak in this debate. I have studied the orders with particular care because of what has happened, and I shall briefly explain what bothers me about those events. Those who saw "Panorama" last week will have seen how a council can use powers such as those that we are being asked to grant tonight to cook the books. For example, Surrey was obliged by order to put a number of services out to contract. In respect of highway maintenance, the contractors were informed that the roads were longer than they actually were. Therefore, the council received high bids. It then bid for the right length of road and, not surprisingly, won the contracts.
What "Panorama" revealed last Monday was the tip of the iceberg. I invite my hon. Friend the Minister to join me in rooting out corruption in Surrey or anywhere else. If more information comes to light, will he join me in ensuring that all such matters are thoroughly investigated? I hope that what happened then cannot happen in respect of tonight's orders. I hope that my hon. Friend can reassure me that tonight's orders provide adequate powers of internal audit and external check, so that when we grant a local authority certain powers, they are transparent, and so that it is easy to ensure that not only the law, but the spirit of competition and contracting out is observed. Thus those of us who believe in that process can be sure that it operates fairly and honestly.

Mr. Chris Davies: I shall be brief; perhaps my throat infection will ensure that my speech is even shorter than I intended.
The orders enable local authorities to contract out certain functions. The word "enable" shapes my approach, which would be different if they attempted to force local authorities to contract out their services. However, I share the concerns of the hon. Member for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong) about the possibility of the orders becoming a precursor to compulsion.
The Liberal Democrats are deeply committed to the principle that decisions should be taken at the lowest practical level. We have always believed that locally elected representatives should ensure that the people whom they represent receive the services that they need and provide those services in the most appropriate circumstances.
I hope that all hon. Members agree that the vast majority of local authorities strive—and always have done—to ensure that services are delivered as efficiently and effectively as possible. That is why we object—and have done so in the past—to the imposition by the Government of compulsory competitive tendering, as it represents an unacceptable degree of control. It has proved a key element in the centralisation of power in the past two decades. Functions have been removed from local government, allowing central Government to dictate to local government and prevent it from exploring its own unique solutions.
Few hon. Members know better than I do that it is possible for a local authority to fall victim to a Frankenstein monster of its own creation. Some 15 years ago, I had the experience of inheriting a direct works department, where the employees and their trade union representatives put their own interests before those of the people and the council. The political circumstances at the time meant that I did not have the power to transform or to slay the monster.
That is why I believe that central Government should impose a general duty on local government to demonstrate publicly that services are provided in the most efficient and effective manner. However, we take a different approach from that of the Government. They are the only Government in Europe who force local authorities to undertake competitive tendering rather than giving them the freedom and the opportunity to do so.
The orders represent a welcome change, however, as they provide local authorities with opportunities and enabling powers without an element of compulsion. Therefore, in principle, we have no objection at all to the orders, but I hope that the Minister will address in his response the serious and detailed concerns that have been raised during the debate.

Sir Paul Beresford: I ought to touch first on the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), who is soon to be a Surrey colleague. I have a keen interest in that matter being sorted out, and it has become a territorial interest. There are adequate police processes, and the fact that those people are being rooted out is a sign of that. Fraud occurs not just in the private sector—it occurs in-house. When one considers the vast amounts being spent by local authorities with or without contractors, the percentage that turns out to be fraudulent is very low. Incompetence is another story.
The hon. Members for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Davies) and for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong) referred to compulsion, but there is none. The measure has been out for discussion for 18 months, and local authority response has been almost blank. I think that a total of 12 responses have been received over the whole 18 months, and local authorities are not concerned about it.
I accept the point that the hon. Lady made about confidentiality, which is vital, as the Government and the local authorities accept. Contractors will be covered by the requirements of the Data Protection Act 1988, exactly as local authorities are. Information obtained specifically for the purpose of local tax collection cannot be used for any other purpose, and contractors must observe the same strict regulations on local government taxation as local authorities. I hope that, with that assurance, the House will accept the orders.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Local Authorities (Contracting Out of Tax Billing, Collection and Enforcement Functions) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 20th June, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft Local Authorities (Contracting Out of Investment Functions) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 25th June, be approved.—[Mr. Brandreth.]

Local Government (North-east Scotland)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Burns.]

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: My contention in this debate is to assert and demonstrate that councils in north-east Scotland are being unfairly treated in relation to the rest of Scotland. North-east councils are delivering vital services to a growing population with fewer resources than the Scottish average. North-east councils account for 9.74 per cent. of the population of Scotland—that is growing rapidly—while the Government's support for north-east councils represents only 9.05 per cent. of the total to Scottish councils, a figure that is falling.
In the circumstances, I find it gratuitous and insulting that inexperienced Ministers should attack north-east councils for profligacy, when, year on year for many years, those councils proved themselves the most efficient, not only in Scotland, but throughout the United Kingdom.
The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch)—who is to reply to the debate—has criticised Grampian region, the main predecessor council. May I remind him—and the other Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson)—that Grampian regional council was assessed as the best council in the UK for its efficiency and value for money? PA Management Consultants, on behalf of the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives, gave it the prize throughout the United Kingdom for its total quality management performance. That is a record of which it has every reason to be proud, and I believe that Ministers ought to give the council credit rather than make gratuitous criticism.
The new councils have had very little time to prove themselves. In spite of that, Aberdeen city council has the lowest council tax of the four cities in Scotland, and Aberdeenshire and Moray have respectively the third and fourth lowest council tax rates on the mainland. In fact, the three lowest rates of council tax on the mainland are in the three councils with Liberal Democrats in the administration—Borders, Dumfries and Galloway, and Aberdeenshire. Yet, in spite of low council taxes, north-east councils have continued to support and develop local services. That is, until now. This year, as a direct result of the Government's miscalculation of the cost of reorganisation and the inadequate real funding that they have made available, most developments have come to a halt, vital services are being cut, and charges are being hiked.
Councillors and council officials, who are rightly proud of their record in providing good-quality, value-for-money services to their local communities, are angry and frustrated at what they are having to do, because the Government have failed to provide adequate money to maintain services. All the councils are seeking and finding substantial efficiency savings, but they go nowhere near meeting the budget reductions, and many of them are short term and will lead to long-term damage of the services they offer.
Based on what was spent last year, councils have had to cut expenditure by an average of nearly 10 per cent in cash terms, and, in the present economic climate of low

inflation, that sort of cut means cutting through the red meat and well into the bone. If the Ministers have questions about that, I can give some detail as to exactly what it means for their constituents as well as mine, although they show rather less concern for the impact than I do.
In Aberdeenshire, the financial settlement and the grant-aided expenditure required a spending reduction on last year's budget of £25.565 million or 9.8 per cent. The city of Aberdeen recorded a reduction of £24.5 million. The situation between the city and the rural authorities was aggravated by a transfer by mismatch, which will mean that it will be worse for the city of Aberdeen next year, and the authorities are already expressing concern about the implications.
Aberdeenshire council has said that, simply to meet the capital budget, it will have to find assets to sell of £7.85 million, because it will be allowed to retain only 75 per cent. of the proceeds, and £5.9 million is the realisable, usable, capital receipt it needs.
On the budget of £235 million, the capital commitment left is £3.564 million, which is totally and hopelessly unrealistic for an organisation of that size. Indeed, it is barely sufficient to meet the council's legal obligations, such as fire precaution works, social work institutions, cemetery extensions, accommodation of overcrowded schools and other mandatory grants. It puts beyond any reasonable calculation for the foreseeable future the provision of a Garioch academy, which our growing school rolls necessitate and for which the outgoing council had the good sense to acquire a site.
The city of Aberdeen has identified cuts. First, on administration, it has rationalised staffing structures at a cost of £2.8 million. It has cut the funding for supplies to schools by £1.9 million, which is a substantial amount. It has reviewed the eligibility for school transport above the statutory minimum requirement—I will return to that—introduced charges for the use of leisure and recreation facilities, additional charges for music tuition and charges for the use of educational establishments, and has increased the cost of school meals by four times the rate of inflation. It has also put up the cost of meals on wheels.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Raymond S. Robertson): That was the council's decision—it was disgraceful.

Mr. Bruce: The hon. Gentleman is not replying to the debate or taking part in it, and I should be grateful if he would let me develop my argument in my own way. Indeed, if he interrupts, he will intrude on the time of his colleague the other Under-Secretary of State, who wants to reply to the debat.
I am demonstrating that there have been real cuts in real services used by real people, who voted for those services and have had them for many years. Those cuts are not being implemented by councillors who were elected to make them or who believe in them. They are being forced to do it. No one is denying that councils can always review what they do and find savings—councils have done. However, it is absurd for Ministers to suggest that the scale of the shortfall can be anywhere near met by efficiency savings.
In Aberdeenshire, the education budget accounts for more than half of council expenditure. Non-exam swimming has had to be cut altogether, which is


controversial and the council does not wish to do it. There has been a reduction in supply staff. [Interruption.] That the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South should find that funny is a fair indication of just how callous a Minister he is and how uncaring he is about the services that his constituents require and for which they voted.
Supply staff have been cut, which increases pressure on permanent teachers. Transport above the statutory minimum for travel to schools has had to be reviewed. A complete halt has been proposed on staff and curriculum development, which should have concerned the hon. Gentleman as Minister responsible for education.
School meals charges have been raised. Some community education centres have been closed, while others have had their hours restricted at exactly the times when community groups are likely to want to use them. There has been a reduction in funding for schoolchildren to travel out of their schools and reduced support for playgroups, and no new nurseries have been opened.
It is a little rich that local Members of Parliament who are Ministers should turn up to support demonstrations on issues that arise out of those cuts. I saw the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South standing among a group of parents demonstrating about the travel-to-school reduction. He chose to champion those people. It is understandable that those people feel the way they do; I have no problem with that. He refuses to accept any responsibility for his Government's policy of reducing the funding, miscalculating the reorganisation costs and forcing councils to review services that they developed and that were not required by statute.
The same applies to the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside in respect of his support for the opening of a nursery school in Newtonhill. No one would like that nursery to open more than me—except perhaps the parents of Alford, which was ahead of Newtonhill in the objective assessment of need. It is ridiculous for a Minister not to acknowledge that councils in these circumstances have to stop all new developments to protect the core services they already provide.
It was because the council had a policy of development that, when the new school in Newtonhill had to be rebuilt because of subsidence, it decided to incorporate a nursery class. It wished to ensure the continued development of nursery education. Unfortunately, it was unable to fund that, because the local Member of Parliament became the Minister responsible for local government, and provided the council with funding inadequate to carry out the project. He knows that to be true.
The record of Grampian regional council in developing nursery education is second to none in Scotland. It was only when the Conservatives were removed from office that the policy of developing nursery schools took off. Nursery school development was consistently frozen while the Conservatives were in control of the council. They never believed in it, funded it or provided it.
Other controversial cuts have been made. The council has shown that it is responsive to local pressures on matters such as the pool at Stonehaven. It has given the community an opportunity to find other ways of funding it. It has reviewed the warden charges in sheltered housing because of concern about those affected by it. Nevertheless, it is cutting home helps, and cutting voluntary services across the board. It is cutting a variety of services that the entire community regards as essential.
In such circumstances, Ministers would serve their constituents better if they were prepared to turn up and fight constructively for the resources the services need, and recognise that we have cost-effective councils that have delivered those services efficiently over many years. The councils would like constructive engagement about improving efficiency, if Ministers have constructive ideas. They do not want megaphone abuse that does not tie in with their records. Those Members should fight in government for their constituents to get a fair crack of the whip. Instead of fighting for their own communities, they are the very instrument of savaging the quality services built up over recent years. What is the point of having local Members of Parliament in government if this is the way in which they behave?
I refute the Government's claims that this year's settlement is adequate. Almost all the extra money was eaten up by reorganisation costs, which were underestimated, by care in the community transfers and by priority allocations for police, fire and the courts. On the Government's own calculation, the provision for roads, environmental services, planning, leisure, recreation and the urban programme was cut. The Government cut the allocation to them, and presumably wanted those services to be cut, but they have never owned up to it in any publicly acknowledged way. The cuts were based on a miscalculation of what was actually spent, and they are even deeper in reality than was at first thought.
The situation will get worse unless the Government rethink their policy. Ministers talk of local government as if it was a thing apart. In fact, councils deliver services that most people use every week, and on the whole they do it well. It is the Government's own mismanagement that is to blame, as is the fact that they have removed councils' independent financing in order to put the bite on them.
Local services efficiently and cost-effectively delivered, which Ministers' and my constituents voted for, valued and until now enjoyed, are now under threat. I contend that those local services are not safe in Tory hands. The voters know that. That is why there are no Tory councils in Scotland and very few Tory councillors.
Now, we need fewer Tory Members of Parliament and no Tory Government, because it is clear, unless the Minister changes his tune in reply to the debate, that a recognition of what people want and have voted for and the requirement that those services be properly delivered requires a rethink of the way in which the Government fund local authorities. They must give them more access to their own finance, and a more realistic financial settlement. Otherwise, good-quality services will continue to be cut, and something that has been built up over the years, of which the north-east people are proud, and which people move to the north-east for, will be put at risk.
I hope that the Minister can give me a reply tonight that will assure me that that will not be the case.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Kynoch): Let me start by congratulating the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) on his success in securing this debate. As he said, I have a dual interest in the topic of tonight's debate; not only as the Scottish Office Minister with responsibility for local


government, but, like the hon. Gentleman, as a Member of Parliament with a constituency in the north-east of Scotland.
I am delighted to see tonight the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson), in his place to show his interest on behalf of his constituency in the debate tonight, and the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) in her place.
The hon. Member for Gordon has been very vocal, both tonight and in the past few months, in his criticism of the Government over the financial position facing the three new councils in the north-east, and particularly the position of Aberdeenshire, within which my constituency and his lie. That shows his total lack of understanding of local government finance, but that is something that I would expect of the hon. Gentleman, who seems more interested these days in matters south, rather than north, of the border. I reject his criticism, and during the next 10 minutes or so, I shall try to explain why.
I start by reminding the House of the key features of the overall 1996–97 local government finance settlement. This year's overall settlement provided, first, for an increase of 2.3 per cent. in the level of Government-supported expenditure, which is the Government's view of what authorities need to spend to pay debt charges and to deliver services. This increase of 2.3 per cent. is before any account is taken of the scope for efficiency savings.
Secondly, the settlement provided for an increase of 3.6 per cent. in the level of Government support. This increase of 3.6 per cent. compares with 2.8 per cent. for England and 2.7 per cent. for Wales. In cash terms, the increase in the level of Government support for Scottish authorities is more than £186 million, which is almost £65 million more than the formula consequences of the English settlement.
As a result of this generous settlement, the level of Government-supported expenditure for Scottish authorities is now 30 per cent. higher per head of population than the comparable amount for English authorities, and the level of Government support for Scottish authorities is no less than 44 per cent. higher than that for English authorities.
If Scottish local authorities ever found themselves in the unfortunate position advocated by the hon. Member for Gordon, of looking to a Scottish Parliament for their financial support, it is most unlikely that they would ever receive a settlement which was £65 million more than the Barnett formula consequences of the English settlement. That is the measure of the extent to which this year's settlement was, in fact, an extremely generous one.
I shall be specific about what the 1996–97 settlement has meant for the three councils formed out of the former Grampian region area. For Aberdeen city council, the settlement permitted an increase in expenditure of £8.8 million, or 4.35 per cent., over its notional 1995–96 budget. But that, it said, was inadequate: it wanted to increase expenditure by around £33 million, or more than 16 per cent.
For Aberdeenshire council, the settlement permitted an increase of £14.8 million, or 7.34 per cent., over its notional 1995–96 budget. Again, it said that that was

inadequate: it wanted to increase spending by £40 million, or nearly 19 per cent. That is despite the fact that senior officials, in the past 10 days, have confirmed to my officials that the notional budget figure was a fair starting point. For Moray council, the settlement permitted an increase of £4.3 million, or 5.06 per cent., over its notional 1995–96 budget. Once more, we were told that that was not enough: it wanted to increase spending by £12 million, or 14 per cent.
At a time when inflation is expected to remain below 3 per cent. throughout this year and local authorities are expected—like the rest of the public sector—to fund any pay increases from efficiency savings, those three councils claim that they needed to increase expenditure by 16, 19 and 14 per cent. I find that absolutely astonishing, and I suspect that council tax payers throughout the area are greatly relieved that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, notwithstanding his general desire to devolve power to local authorities, decided to retain his power to cap local authorities.
The hon. Member for Gordon referred to Newtonhill nursery in my constituency. He seems to be more concerned about matters in my constituency than in his own. If he is not worrying about Stonehaven hospital, he is worrying about Newtonhill nursery. That nursery has been built and equipped, but, sadly, not opened. That, we are told, is one of the consequences of Aberdeenshire council having to cut its education budget by £11.5 million.
I note, however, from the council's own leaflet that it has increased its education budget by virtually £2 million over last year's level, from roughly £108 million to £110 million. I take it that, if the council had not made cuts of £11.5 million, it would have pitched its education budget £11.5 million higher—an increase of 12.5 per cent. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is making comments from a sedentary position. He shows his total lack of understanding of financial matters, but I would expect that from the Liberal Democrats. I find it astonishing that any council would dare to suggest that it needed to increase spending by 12.5 per cent. at a time when inflation is below 3 per cent.
The council might have been better advised to spend the £26,000 that it spent this year on producing a new logo on opening the new nursery class at Newtonhill. I suspect that the children in the nursery would have been only too happy, and able, to design the council's new logo for it.
Given the generosity of the settlement and the specific assistance for particular areas, one might be excused for wondering why there has been so much talk of councils having to make cuts in their level of service provision. I can assure the House that it is not because we made an inadequate settlement, nor is it a direct result of reorganisation per se. It is wholly due to the irresponsible actions of the outgoing councils over the past couple of years, and particularly during their last year of tenure.
It has been clear since the old councils across Scotland set their last budgets, in March 1995, that they were storing up problems for their successors. They budgeted to spend some £140 million from balances rather than fund pay rises from efficiency savings. At that time, the new councils stood to inherit balances totalling £45 million.
However, the enormity of the old councils' disregard for the plight of the new councils has become clearer as time has passed. It now appears that the old councils went far further even than they had planned. The new councils have inherited a collective deficit of £11.5 million. So, having set out to spend £140 million from balances last year, the outgoing councils actually spent about £200 million. In so doing, they have handed over the legacy of an artificially high level of expenditure. It is artificial in the sense that it could not possibly be sustained by the new councils, even with an extremely generous settlement.
Further confirmation of the irresponsibility of the old councils is now available. Provisional outturn expenditure figures for the outgoing councils demonstrate that they spent some £143 million more during 1995–96 than they budgeted to spend at the start of the year.
I concede that budgeting is not, and cannot be, a precise exercise. However, when I examined the figures for the past 10 years, I found that the local authorities had never overrun their budgets by more than 0.9 per cent. Indeed, they underspent on several occasions by between 1 and 2 per cent. Last year's overspend of £143 million represents an overspend of 2.5 per cent., and is some £100 million more than the 'worst overspend in the past 10 years.
Therefore, the difficulties that the new councils face are the fault of the outgoing councils, not of the Government. There is absolutely no doubt that the difficulties that Aberdeenshire—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman would shut up and listen for a moment—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. The hour may be late, but I still expect certain standards of courtesy and we are falling below them.

Mr. Kynoch: If the hon. Gentleman will be a little more patient and listen, he will hear what I have to say about the north-east. There is absolutely no doubt that the difficulties that Aberdeenshire and the other new councils in the north-east have faced over their revenue budgets are a direct result of irresponsible action by Grampian regional council.
I suppose that one could suggest that we should have some sympathy for the new councils—and I concede that I might feel that way in certain circumstances. However, that is certainly not the case when—as with Aberdeenshire--the new administration comes from the same stable as the old. This is where the hon. Gentleman, as a Liberal Democrat, gets slightly embarrassed.
Grampian region was controlled by a Liberal Democrat alliance, and so is the new council. Senior officials in the new council also served in the Grampian region. Both councillors and officials knew that they were taking action last year that was bound to have an adverse impact on Aberdeenshire council—the phrase "chickens coming home to roost" springs to mind. That experience of extravagant prodigality by local authorities—

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: rose—

Mr. Kynoch: No, I will not give way.
Extravagant prodigality by local authorities controlled by the Opposition parties is one of the reasons—

Mr. Bruce: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister is attacking officials who have no right of reply. Is that in order? Would he do it to his own civil servants?

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair.

Mr. Kynoch: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
That experience of extravagant prodigality by local authorities controlled by the Opposition parties is one reason why we on Conservative Benches oppose a tax-raising Scottish Parliament. It would become a focus for the same high-taxing, high-spending aberrations as we have seen in local government—many of its members would almost certainly be drawn from the ranks of Opposition councillors. With a weapon such as the tartan tax at its disposal, it would wreak havoc upon Scottish taxpayers, jobs and the economy.
If the hon. Gentleman has complaints about the funding of the new councils—particularly Aberdeenshire—he should direct them not at the Government, but at the members of his party who were part of the administration of Grampian regional council that took totally irresponsible action last year in relation to current expenditure.
The hon. Gentleman referred to capital expenditure. As he will be aware, last year local authorities were entitled to make forward commitments totalling some 70 per cent. of the 1995–96 allocations. Authorities in the Grampian area made commitments far in excess of that, and now face a major problem in having to account for how they will recover from that over-allocation. Last year, they over-committed by 75 per cent. on the 70 per cent. allocation.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Show us the figures.

Mr. Kynoch: I shall give the hon. Lady the figures. At the end of last year, the new councils said that they would inherit commitments from Grampian of just under £16 million. Three or four months later, according to the new councils' figures, they had inherited commitments of £35 million. My right hon. Friend had guaranteed to meet £20 million. It is clear that, in the last few months of its existence, Grampian chose to place its successors in a position of having to meet commitments which it knew that my right hon. Friend could not meet. I do not think that that was responsible financial management by the outgoing councillors.
Underlying the debate on local government expenditure is a more fundamental issue. The Opposition parties have never come to terms with accountability for spending what they inaccurately call "public money". As we on Conservative Benches have often pointed out, and will continue to reiterate, there is no such thing as "public money". There is only taxpayers' money. The stewardship of taxpayers' money is a moral responsibility.
Unfortunately for taxpayers in Aberdeenshire and the rest of Scotland, the Opposition parties have not yet matured sufficiently to replace a propensity to squander with a culture of stewardship. Unless and until they embrace that culture of stewardship, they will remain unfit to govern locally or nationally. The Government will continue to fight for the taxpayers' and for Scotland's


interests by pursuing policies of responsible financial stewardship based on respect for the rights of our citizens, whose money we have a duty to manage with punctilious care.
The hon. Gentleman has shown that he totally misunderstands the situation in the north-east of Scotland. Central taxation funding, which comes through Government support, has been greater than ever before. The hon. Gentleman cannot accept that his party in the local authority of Aberdeenshire has, in the years when it was in Grampian region, been unable to budget and spend as much as it told the electorate it was budgeting for. It has overspent, used up resources, sold assets, sold the family silver, so that it could keep the council tax at such a level that his party could face its electorate.
Now chickens are coming home to roost. The Liberal Democrats have to account to their electorate, because they now control the new local authority, and they now have to make cuts from a wish list that they had in the

past. Had they had their house in order over the past few years, they would have been able to manage without making cuts. Had they got their priorities right and not frittered some of the expenses which they have, on issues such as cycle paths or new logos, I believe that they would have been able to open nurseries, or to maintain transport for pupils to learn to swim.
Those are issues that the Liberal Democrats in particular have shown that they are totally incapable of managing in local government. I believe that the Government have done their bit to smooth the path for the local authorities, to try to ensure, by giving them significantly more than what flows through from the English settlement—

The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes past Twelve midnight.